US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside
from the it's-spreading... dept
As the EU is still trying to figure out what it’s going to do about the highly contested EU Copyright Directive, it appears that at least one of the controversial parts, the ridiculous Article 11 link tax, is spreading to the US. David Chavern, the CEO of the News Media Alliance (a trade group representing legacy news publishers), is agitating in the NY Times for a US version of Article 11. The article if is so chock full of “wrong” that it’s embarrassing. Let’s dig in.
Facebook and Google have been brutal to the news business.
Citation needed. Seriously. Nothing in this piece explains how this is true. I know that lots of journalists claim it to be true, but they are lacking in evidence. The truth is Facebook and Google have been very good for some news operations, very bad for others, and all over the spectrum for others. It kinda depends on the news organization and the choices of those news organizations specifically. In other words: it’s the news organizations’ fault if they’re suddenly having trouble because their traffic has dried up.
But this primarily reflects a failure of imagination. The tech giants are the world?s best distribution platforms and could be an answer for journalism instead of a grave threat.
Again, for many news organizations, these platforms are an answer: an answer that drives traffic.
As readers have shifted to digital sources, the two companies have taken a large majority of online advertising revenue.
Note the verb choice: “taken.” As if it was snatched away from the rightful owners: the legacy news business who did fuck all to adapt to the internet. No, the large majority of online advertising went to those platforms because those platforms provided a better result for advertisers. We can discuss whether or not that’s a good thing, and whether or not advertisers are silly to focus on those platforms (indeed, I’d argue, they are!). But to blame Facebook and Google for making advertisers happier seems weird.
More important, the platforms now act as ?regulators? of the news business ? determining what information gets delivered to whom, and when. With the flick of an algorithmic finger, those two companies decide what news you see and whether a publisher lives or dies.
They only do that if the news publications focused solely on chasing traffic, rather than building up loyal audiences who come directly to their sites. Nothing Google or Facebook do really has that much of an impact on our traffic. Because we don’t rely on them for traffic. They send us some — which is great — but our strategy has always focused on loyal readers, not drive by traffic. So, no, Techdirt readers don’t rely on those platforms to get our content. Nor should they.
If your entire business strategy is based on some third party you can’t control, it seems a little, well, dubious, for you to whine that they don’t act the way you want them to.
The impact on journalism has been clear. Just within the past week, we have seen over 1,000 planned layoffs at Gannett, BuzzFeed and HuffPost, and no one thinks we are anywhere near the end.
This is also misleading. While, yes, there were some high profile layoffs that included a bunch of journalists — and that sucks — the 1,000 number is greatly exaggerated. As Peter Sterne pointed out, the vast majority of that 1,000 number (~800) came from “Oath” the Verizon-owned Frankenstein’s monster made up of various properties from HuffPost to Yahoo to AOL — and the majority of them were not journalists. So, yes, it’s still bad to see these layoffs. But using this 1,000 number to imply that that many journalists lost their job is highly misleading, and pretty shameful for a guy who represents news publishers.
We can start with the fact that ?free? isn?t a good business model for quality journalism.
Free is not the fucking business model. Free has never been a business model. However, free can very often be a key part of a very compelling business model.
Facebook and Google flatly refuse to pay for news even though they license many other types of content. Both companies have deals to pay music publishers when copyrighted songs play on their platforms. And the companies also aggressively bid to stream live sports and entertainment content to run on Facebook Watch and YouTube. These deals are varied and often secret, but none of them are based on ?free.?
And this may be the dumbest thing that Chavern has written in this entire article full of bad ideas. Google and Facebook pay licenses for that other content because they host that content full on their sites. They don’t pay for news because they’re not hosting the news, but rather sending traffic to those news sites. For free.
Why are the platforms so unwilling to pay news publishers for access to the quality journalism that users need and value?
Again, because you’re comparing apples to oranges. This is comparing totally different situations in a way that makes no sense.
There?s no reason those who produce the news shouldn?t enjoy the same intellectual property protections as songwriters and producers (regulators in Europe are looking at replicating some of these safeguards for journalism).
These are not “the same intellectual property protections as songwriters and producers.” News already has the same “intellectual property protections as songwriters and producers.” It’s called copyright and it applies to news as well as songs. The issue is that what’s happening here is entirely different. Google and Facebook pay for hosting music. They’re not hosting news (other than in very minor ways where news orgs choose to host on their platforms for specific purposes). Instead, Google and Facebook are sending people off to the news sites themselves, which should be a better deal, because then you have those people on your own damn site where you can offer all sorts of other things — some of which might even make the publishers some money. Or, build a loyal fan base who won’t need to go through those dastardly platforms in the future.
And, yes, it’s blatantly misleading to claim that the EU’s ridiculous Article 11 is the EU “replicating some of these safeguards for journalism.” Hell, this is close to journalistic malpractice from a guy who pretends to represent journalism. Remember, we already know what happens with an Article 11 type setup: it didn’t magically lead to the big platforms paying news publishers, and it actually did significant harm to news publishers, in particular the smaller ones.
The tech giants are also run as ?walled gardens? that minimize brands and separate publishers from their readers ? even while hoarding information about those same readers.
I don’t think he knows what a “walled garden” means. And, again, these services work by sending readers to the news publication sites themselves. That’s not “separating publishers from readers” unless the publishers are so clueless they do nothing to build a loyal community.
Imagine trying to build a trusted relationship with an audience when you can?t even know who they are.
That’s how every community works. You don’t know who they are at first. You build up trust and maybe they tell you. But you need to work on building a direct relationship yourself. You don’t sit there and just wait for the audience to magically find you and then blame Google when they don’t.
Publishers need new economic terms that include more revenue and more information about our readers.
So, uh, build the new revenue models that involve building up a loyal community who chooses to share info and you get that. And Google and Facebook don’t.
Facebook and Google also need to be willing to acknowledge investments in quality journalism through their algorithms. They are constantly on the defensive about spreading false and misleading ?news? that hurts people. They could start to address the problem by simply recognizing that The Miami Herald is a much better news source than Russian bots or Macedonian teenagers ? and highlighting original, quality content accordingly.
Um, both Facebook and (especially) Google already do that. How does he not know this. Indeed, the entire point of Google is to promote the more trustworthy content. It fails sometimes, but this paragraph misleadingly suggests that Google treats Macedonian teens at the same level as it treats the Miami Herald and that’s laughably wrong. You can’t make good policy decisions if you simply are spouting off nonsense.
Recognizing and promoting publishers that have consistently delivered quality news content can?t be that difficult for sophisticated tech companies. And there are a range of qualified independent ratings organizations, such as NewsGuard, that could help them separate the wheat from the chaff.
Again, that’s exactly what Google already does.
Whether they like to admit it or not, Facebook and Google are at real risk when it comes to the news business. Under the adage ?You break it, you buy it,? the platforms now own what happens when quality journalism goes away.
Facebook and Google didn’t break news. Newspapers failed to adapt and now they’re whining about it.
A true leader for the news publishers wouldn’t be begging platforms like Google and Facebook for money like that. He’d be helping those platforms adapt and build more loyal audiences, and experiment with more sophisticated business models. And, really, the most incredible part of this strategy from Chavern and the News Media Alliance is that it would only serve to do one thing: making those news publishers more reliant on Google and Facebook, giving them even more power.
News organizations deserve better than to have a trade organization spewing such utter nonsense.
Filed Under: article 11, david chavern, google news, google tax, journalism, news, newspapers, platforms
Companies: facebook, google, news media alliance
Comments on “US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside”
License
Google really should be charging the news orgs everytime they get a clickthru to their sites, not the other way around. But that would be “mean” and would turn news into a paid advertising biz.
I do wonder if Google could open up deals for news groups in Spain by making Google News Spain a paid service that Google sells to news orgs there. That would eliminated the mandatory link tax I imagine. And Google could set the prices, giving the little guys a huge break and propping up competition. (Because the Google News Embargo hurt all the news orgs there, but the largest orgs took less of a hit since they relied more on their traditional channels, while the smaller groups lost their main source of clicks.)
Dumb ideas spread like measles.
Re: License
MY, how blithely you propose that Google should promote competition but politicians who are merely the representatives of The People shouldn’t, besides put up the sheer fantasy that Google is beneficent and won’t ever try to totally rule the world. (Or, you could be cynically suggesting that it’ll keep the illusion of competition so won’t face policital action.)
If true, yours will be taken up by EU / US for action tomorrow.
Re: Re: License
I was merely proposing that as a way for Google to by-pass the mandatory link-tax imposed in Spain and other areas. And to point out that Google is the one providing a billable service (advertising) and not leeching off the newspapers.
Re: Re: Re: Leeching is as leeching does.
Leeching is as leeching does. Publishers and I view it differently.
But mainly, like the majority here, you see this TOTALLY from Google’s view, ignoring that business and society is complex relations. The news industry believes that they’re going OUT of business soon without a cut of revenue. Google believes its going to totally control all news soon. I don’t want either of those, and don’t see this as the internet-ending disaster that Masnick does. We need a new deal here. I say Google doesn’t get to just take whatever wants.
By the way, I see you’re moderate and on topic in response when know is ME instead of your prior habit of simple gainsaying and belittlilng. Good. Keep that practice (Timmy), it’s all I’ve ever asked.
Re: Re: Re:2 Leeching is as leeching does.
So you agree, the newspapers are leeching off Google, eh mate?
Yes, I am ignoring the parts of your rant that go off the deepend in an effort to stay on target. We know that you love Corporations and want to give them all the power via strong copyrights.
Have you forgotten that newspapers are corporations, too?
Re: Re: Re:2 Leeching is as leeching does.
And scream bloody murder when Google de-indexes them. What they want is somebody else to pay for their own business failures.
Re: Re: Re:2 Leeching is as leeching does.
Pull your head out of your ass, and suddenly your view won’t look as different.
Re: Re: Re:2 Leeching is as leeching does.
"Google believes its going to totally control all news soon"
Huh? How does providing a link to the news site controlling them? If they wanted to purposely not list a site – well its up to them to do so. Im not forced to go to google news for my information.
"Google doesn’t get to just take whatever wants"
What are they taking? They spend their own time organizing news and putting into a format that doesnt cripple your browser with all sorts of nonsense like yahoo. Cant see what you are complaining about.
Re: Re: Re:3 Leeching is as leeching does.
You answered your own question.
Most people don’t remember the URLs for the sites they visit. I.e. Most of the time they type in "facebook" instead of "https://facebook.com/". Guess what? Because of a "helpful" function of the URL bar, that tends to open a search engine’s results page for whatever they typed in, and then they click on the link that was made for them to get to the original site they were going to. Now imagine what would happen for those users if the site they wanted to get to was no longer listed by that search engine? What about all search engines? The vast majority of those users would say "internet is broken," and not get to the intended site that day.
Again, answered your own question. All of that crippling behavior is ADs being generated and delivered to you so that the site can make money from the advertisers. When you go though another site to view their posts, their ADs don’t load, they get no money, and you get "free" content.
Not that I agree with their solutions, but it does seem like something to complain about since there is money involved.
Re: Re: Re:4 Leeching is as leeching does.
But Google only shows snippets to temp people to click through to the news site, where their adverts load. If they are not getting the click throughs they need to look at how they write the snippets.
Re: Re: Re:4
The vast majority of those users would say "internet is broken," and not get to the intended site that day.
Or they would just check their browser history for the full address, the auto-complete plenty of browsers seem to have would fill in the rest of the address after they typed in most of it, they could ask someone else…
‘People can be lazy’ does not ‘therefore search engines exert control over the sites they link to’ make.
When you go though another site to view their posts, their ADs don’t load, they get no money, and you get "free" content.
The ads on the main page don’t load, because you never loaded it, but the ads on the page with the article certainly do, so at most getting to an article directly bypasses one layer of ads, and if that is enough to tank a site/business then they were doomed from the start.
Re: Re: Re:4 Ignorant is as ignorant does
So the people you should be really mad at is the web browser developers (granted one of them is Google) because they could remove that feature anytime they want. Then you would really be up a creek without a paddle.
People would switch to a different search engine.
Oh, right, we’re talking crazy. Well in that case someone would probably create a new search engine that doesn’t do that, but until then people would have to write down or otherwise favorite/save the URLs for sites they like. Kind of like how the internet was before search engines came on the scene back in the 90s. Newsflash, that would never happen. But guess what! You and the industries you shill for want to do exactly that with all this "right to be forgotten" and false DMCA takedown crap. Pot? Meet kettle.
Heh, this is funny. A couple of things:
You are something to complain about.
Google told me I’m not allowed to read Techdirt anymore. Sorry.
Re: Re:
google won’t let me read the flagged comments on their piece of crap android and gave me a hard time making this comment.
Aggregators?
Over 90% of what newspapers and news site post…
Is news from other agencies… Its not their own.
Local news is independent and doesnt spread all over the world/nation/state..
The Adverts for local, Are LOCAL…
If this happens,, WHO gets the money?? the aggregator or the agency that Found and produced the article???
It wont help local news.. Only the big national and international agencies will get any money.
And Who in hell, thinks google CANT click off a switch, and blackout all of it??
And, this will give google an upper hand. They can now Blackmail all the news agencies to PAY THEM to post link to All their articles..
Re: Aggregators?
Extort, not Blackmail. Get your felonies right. 🙂
There’s a simple way to "prove" the newsclowns wrong. Have them put robots.txt on their servers. Voila! No more google traffic.
As others have noticed, and I’ve been saying since the start of this nonsense, google is providing the "news sources" with a FREE SERVICE. They’d be quite within their rights to charge a clickthrough fee, just like any other advertiser does for redirects to their sites.
Re: Re: Aggregators?
OR,
as all the reat have done…
Become the Main aggregator for all the rest..
They can collect the news from the major corps, at a fee, then sell it to the others…
How is this complicated?
Google and Facebook pay the same when they provide a link to a song on a music publisher’s site as they do when they provide a link to a movie on a movie publisher’s site as they do when they provide a link to a news article on a news publisher’s site – nothing.
They also honour robots.txt if you don’t want that traffic.
Yes, if they actually play music or video, they pay a licensing fee. I’m sure they’d be happy to negotiate an appropriate licensing fee for displaying full news articles if doing so is good for their business.
Re: How is this complicated?
If they display the entire article rather than just a "teaser" with a link to the full article on the original publisher’s site then fine, they should pay a licensing fee for that. They’re reproducing the work in full after all.
But that’s not what Article 11 is all about. The claim is that even providing a teaser/snippet of the article is tantamount to piracy and whoever provided that teaser/snippet (Google, Facebook, et al) should pay a licensing fee for that. The problem is that this is Fair Use in the US and the whole purpose is to provide end users with enough information that they decide whether to click the link to read the full article on the original publisher’s site. That’s effectively a service that Google/Facebook/etc are doing FOR the publisher, not for themselves.
Sure, having more useful search results is an advantage over those who do not but, in the end, those links are to the benefit of the publisher, not Google, et al. If those links lack snippets they’re not very useful and will drive far less traffic to the news publishers’ sites.
This is nothing at all like paying a license fee to play music or movies in full on their sites. They don’t pay a fee for playing a short piece of either of those as that is Fair Use.
How do you "adapt" to someone taking your content for free?
That’s the KEY question of teh internets. So far, it’s Masnick yelling "NEW BUSINESS MODEL" in face of not only news industry but book and all content publishers lined up to agree that YOU CAN’T COMPETE WITH FREE WHEN IT’S YOUR OWN CONTENT that you PAY for and others use for FREE.
Now, that IS a bit to side of this topic, as Google could (I don’t admit does) send traffic to sites. —
But that’s its supposed purpose. — Problem comes in when Google ALSO sucks up majority of advertising revenue, so that any traffic to your site doesn’t pay so much as "should", for want of better word.
Then there’s the problem that GOOGLE CAN ARBITRARILY CONTROL THAT TRAFFIC. The import and future is obvious, even though denied.
Google won’t pay a pittance, when it could. It keeps revenue out of reach from both US and EU — at least until buys from politicians a tax amnesty that allowed it to return the money at lower rate — which IS an actual charge that can be laid to Trump, but oddly, one which Masnick has no problem with.
Anyhoo, to somewhat skip to bottom line: so long as Google has arbitrary control, then it needs to be regulated, because NO market can last if not vaguely fair.
Re:
Über-successful movies do it all the time. Or do you think Black Panther was only pirated after it came out on Netflix?
Re: Re: Re:
??? Success needs no help by definitiion. You are evidently solely for the uber-mensch as narrowly gauged by economic "success", while I’m arguing for a system that promotes niches and diversity and is reasonably FAIR to everyone.
Again, you’re propaganding the way Joseph Goebbels did, even now using German. Huh.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dang, a Godwin this early? Such a shame.
Also y u still here brah
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I see that on this "free speech" site, the censoring has begun.
I point out that I’m ignoring your characteristic childish taunts. Because you’ll go on if not.
Jjust for two seconds, Stone, consider that "news" which Google doesn’t want out won’t be shown at all. Do you really want Google (or any corporation) to have that power? Because that’s the de facto.
This is part of forcing Uber-corporations to play vaguely fair. Why are you against that?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Two things.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Who said it was? Just your tactic of random attack.
Techdirt doesn’t moderate. Or am I behind and today has changed? — No, Stone, what I complain of is that editorial control has been used in violation of CDA Section 230 to disadvantage my viewpoint with editorial warning and requiring extra effort of a click. It’s simply uber-hypocrisy which I call masnocrisy on a site that so trumpets "free speech".
And again, you’re a Nazi if want me out of all discussion, or even disadvantaged. You clowns claim you’ll defend "free speech" but in practice you can’t even stand my little bits of text to be seen. SHEESH.
Last I saw, InfoWars doesn’t moderate, and it’s vile, I never read comments but once or twice. YOU, though, appear to be an ardent attacker, are probably on there with far worse than your nasty little off-topic ad hom here..
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
No, Stone, what I complain of is that editorial control has been used in violation of CDA Section 230 to disadvantage my viewpoint with editorial warning and requiring extra effort of a click.
From CDA 230 (c)(2): "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)"
(c)(1) similarly endorses "any action" to "restrict access to or availability of material" EVEN IF that content is "is constitutionally protected."
CDA 230 was literally written to encourage sites to moderate content. So, please do explain how it is a "violation of CDA Section 230" to moderate content? I’ll wait.
Re: Re: Re:6
Well, see, Mike, you have to moderate it fairly~. That means you can’t delete anything other than what a court orders you to delete~. Don’t you know anything about 230~?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
HUH. Here’s what has previously been quoted for the ACTUAL text:
SO, please state whether the "in good faith" clause is part of the requirements — because arbitrary to disadvantage political opponents simply cannot meet that test.
THEN if the "in good faith" term does appear in the text of the law, explain why you left it out.
And finally, NO statute can over-ride the Constitution. Period. If what you assert is the text, then it’s simply un-Constitutional, null and void.
Re: Re: Re:7
You try to spring a trap about “good faith”, yet you ignore a more important phrase in the clause you quoted: whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
SO, please state whether the "in good faith" clause is part of the requirements
Hey Professor! So far the courts have made it clear that "good faith" means "whatever the platform wants." And, as you know, "common law" actually means what the courts say about the law, and so — you’ll love this — under the common law you insist is so important, "good faith" means as long as the platform has a reason to moderate your bullshit content, that’s clearly allowed.
Now, let’s get back to the actual fucking point. You insisted that moderation is in violation of CDA 230. I proved you were wrong. Can you cite a single court case (just 1!) that agrees with you on this point, and not me?
I’ll wait. Really. I will.
And finally, NO statute can over-ride the Constitution. Period. If what you assert is the text, then it’s simply un-Constitutional, null and void.
CDA 230 doesn’t over-ride the Constitution. Indeed, it’s supported by the Constitution.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
First, you OMIT explaining why you left out the KEY requirement. I find that significant.
My bet is you thought I’d gone.
So far. Dred Scott was "so far" too, yet utterly wrong. America isn’t based on "so far" but in doing what’s right for ALL the people, certainly not for corporations.
No, but neither could Dred Scott! That’s not a dodge, simply admitting fact. I see cases on the way. There was an AC in last week who’s apparently knowledgeable and stated same opinioin. There’s a… case… which memory isn’t bringing up names for, but which exactly raises what I do, that it’s false advertising to claim "free speech" and take the protections of Section 230 and yet be arbitrary in "moderating".
Let me toss a hot-pothetical backatcha: Suppose you and I were to argue this before a jury of my peers? Can you see your notion that corporations are empowered to CONTROL the jury’s free speech winning?
As I’ve argued elsewhere, if RESULT is that corporations have absolute arbitrary control of "platforms", then it must be tossed out, simply can’t be rectified with rest of American law.
I DO have boilerplate on this…
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
First, you OMIT explaining why you left out the KEY requirement. I find that significant.
There is nothing to say. I didn’t mention it the first time because it literally has NEVER ONCE been found to matter in any court of law. I left it out because it is literally meaningless and all of the precedents say that it is not interpeted the way you pretend it must be. So it’s not important. That’s why I omitted it.
No, but neither could Dred Scott!
Seriously? That’s not an argument. That’s a troll. You can dismiss literally anything that way. The fact is that CDA 230 has been tested in courts over and over again and not a single one has interpreted it they way you have, and there is no indication that any of them ever will.
There’s a… case… which memory isn’t bringing up names for, but which exactly raises what I do, that it’s false advertising to claim "free speech" and take the protections of Section 230 and yet be arbitrary in "moderating".
So there’s a mythical case that you can’t remember that magically proves your point. Oh sure…
Suppose you and I were to argue this before a jury of my peers? Can you see your notion that corporations are empowered to CONTROL the jury’s free speech winning?
Yes, of course it would win. You are, of course, misrepresenting what CDA 230 does, and what it’s purpose is. It is not that platforms are empowered to control the jury’s free speech. It is, indeed, quite the opposite. CDA 230 freed up platforms to host everyone’s speech. Without it, you WOULD NOT have these forums at all.
As I’ve argued elsewhere, if RESULT is that corporations have absolute arbitrary control of "platforms", then it must be tossed out, simply can’t be rectified with rest of American law.
You have argued that based on trolling and ignorance, but fail to cite a single case in support. Because you can’t.
Re: Re: Re:10 Quote-and-contradict isn't adequate, either.
You simply favor your corporatist view and haven’t actually scored any points. Either.
Since you asked, I laid out my whole boilerplate on this for hypothetical readers to judge for themselves, as a jury would.
Your notions are fascist, can only lead to corporations controlling all free speech.
That’s anti-American. Corporations are FICTIONS. You want them to be de facto royalty, unaccountable to we "natural persons".
Now, as to whether THIS forum could exist, I say you’re wrong there, too! I see the advantages but say simply that aren’t following ALL of CDA Section 230, in not having any valid reason by common and common decency to censor — I mean "hide" my comments, you just have the power to, for now.
Looking for the case…
Re: Re: Re:11 Quote-and-contradict isn't adequate, either.
"Your notions are fascist, can only lead to corporations controlling all free speech."
Incredibly stupid, corporations being able to control what is said on THEIR PLATFORMS is not fascist or something that allows corporations to control free speech.
"Now, as to whether THIS forum could exist, I say you’re wrong there, too! I see the advantages but say simply that aren’t following ALL of CDA Section 230, in not having any valid reason by common and common decency to censor — I mean "hide" my comments, you just have the power to, for now."
Being a complete idiot is a valid reason to have your comments hidden.
Re: Re: Re:10 Here's a case: it's similar to Cable TV content.
Directly as to whether statute authorizing "platforms" (the buzzword will do here) and yet allowing them total arbitrary control:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-4155/16-4155-2018-02-09.html
Re: Re: Re:11 Here's a case: it's similar to Cable TV content.
That’s not the current one, on which memory still fails. Tactical mistake to mention and let you jeer.
Nonetheless, there IS such a case using "false advertising" as part of claim, fairly on point (though of course never certain), and we’ll see.
Re: Re: Re:10 But "in good faith" is part of THE LAW, and you blow it off!
Because inconvenient. You pick and choose.
Now, those 3 words are absolutely so valid if rest of the law is, so are operative, and MUST be heeded. It’s a crucial test. Just because haven’t been mentioned in a court case — because tacitly assumed or not needed — doesn’t mean isn’t an absolute, can’t-just-ignore requirement.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
The forgotten name stumbled across: PragerU.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/01/15/prageru-files-new-lawsuit-against-google/
I know your response, Masnick: "Pffft! So what? Not a chance."
Yes, it’s got some flaws. Nonetheless, it’s exactly apposite with my notions to be tested in a real live court, so we’ll see. — But won’t end there! Because more clear cases are CERTAIN to arise the more you corporatists push the notion that have absolute control.
Similarly, on the SNEAKY INDIRECT ways of modern censorship:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/01/dennis-prager-we-are-in-a-dark-age-because-left-controls-silicon-valley/
You should have sense enough to STOP responding to person you deem "troll".
Now, if I don’t respond, you and fanboys get to say "Chicken!" — Or if I do, you get to say "Troll!" — I can’t win here, I know that. So I just have FUN, and you REALLY resent that.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
Heh. PragerU? Are you serious? You ignore that the same lawsuit got tossed from court already on 230 grounds, as will this latest version (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180327/14362539515/court-tosses-dennis-pragers-silly-lawsuit-against-youtube-refuses-his-request-preliminary-injunction.shtml). You also ignore the rather hilarious filing from Google in that lawsuit — that we wrote about — detailing how the only thing it’s done to PragerU is to put some into "restricted mode" which means that it’s more adult themed — and that it did that on a much lower percentage than it had done for many other channels, including those most would deem a lot more liberal (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180309/15270839397/youtube-shows-dennis-pragers-claim-discrimination-against-conservatives-is-laughable.shtml).
From that filing, a mere 12% of PragerU’s videos went into restricted mode (they were all still available, just without ads). That turns out to be lower (often way lower) than Stephen Colbert’s show (13%), HuffPost (14%), The History Channel (24%), Vox.com (28%), Sam Seder (36%), Buzzfeed (40%), Democracy Now (46%), Last Week Tonight (50%) and The Daily Show (55%).
Most of those are considered heavily left-leading by folks like PragerU, so, um, how can they claim they’re being discriminated against for their political beliefs when their videos are put into restricted mode at a much LOWER rate than channels that are definitely seen as more liberal?
You can make up fantasyland in your head. It doesn’t make it real. The first lawsuit was tossed (with some choice words by the judge). So, too, will this one.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Apparently you didn’t bother to read that it’s a new suit in state court.
You just sneer as I predicted.
The case isn’t perfect, but it’s current. I can’t wish up better cases: for one thing, the current censors have learned, and are SNEAKY in how censor.
And WE’LL SEE. That’s all I say.
Now, I’ve given you some advice on the weekly Mutual Admiration page that quote and contradict isn’t effective. You should have learned that by now, especially with ME. You keep repeating the same simple tactics (TOO) like an ankle-biter.
These little back and forth sniping attacks RUIN THE SITE. Either ignore or be effective. So how about "deprecating" sniping as your own and commenters tactic?
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
Apparently you didn’t bother to read that it’s a new suit in state court.
No, I did. I said that the previous version got tossed out and "as will this latest version." It’s the same lawsuit that failed in federal court now attempting jurisdiction shopping in a less sophisticated state court. It’ll get tossed too. Especially because it’s just trying to repeat a federal case that already got tossed.
that quote and contradict isn’t effective.
Oh, it’s quite effective.
You should have learned that by now, especially with ME. You keep repeating the same simple tactics (TOO) like an ankle-biter.
Nah. It’s useful to just reinforce what a clueless numbskull you are.
These little back and forth sniping attacks RUIN THE SITE
Considering that you tend to be wrong about everything, I’ll assume that this means these kinds of conversations enhance the site.
Look, dude, as I’ve explained to you before, I don’t know what you get out of being a constant clueless jackass, but it seems to really get you pretty worked up. It’s weird, but, hey, everyone has their own kinks. But just accept the fact that literally not a single person here thinks you have made a good point in all the years and all the comments you give. Maybe, just maybe, think about why you can’t seem to find a single person who agrees with you here. Perhaps — and, I know this is a crazy point to suggest — perhaps it’s that you’re wrong. And an asshole, to boot. It’s a bad combination.
Re: Re: Re:8 Is Section 230 CDA to benefit The Public or corporations?
Masnick believes that censorship is entirely okay if isn’t government.
Obviously The Public by providing speech outlets. You could not find a single politician who’d say it’s to benefit corporations. — Though it’s entirely possible that was and is the intent: a stealthy form of censorship.
Corporations have PR departments with large budgets to get their message out. It’s only individual "natural" persons who need outlets for their views.
CDA 230 provides a new form of immunity that allows corporations to HOST content without the full liability of PUBLISHING it as still true for print outlets.
And it pretty much REQUIRES that "platforms" police the sites for The Public:
That just states causes valid in common law. It’s a requirement for simple decency — the "D" in CDA. Not controversial so far…
Re: Re: Re:8 Corporations get a DEAL: immunity IN EXCHANGE FOR opportunity.
The deal of CDA 230 is to be NEUTRAL HOSTS for The Public’s speech.
Otherwise, corporations MUST obey the traditional laws of publishing and be responsible for EVERY BIT on the "platform".
The deal was granted BY The Public (through our representatives) and clearly meant as a convenience to allow The Public to use the internet without having to manage technical details. PERIOD.
CDA 230 NEVER in least authorizes corporations to discriminate (for their own purposes) as to WHO and WHAT is published. That’s controlled by common law.
We The People don’t have to allow the hosting corporations to exist at all! It’s entirely our option. They’re to SERVE The Public or be broken up.
Of course, GREEDY GRASPING corporatists soon found a loophole that they claim allows them POWER OVER THE PUBLIC.
Re: Re: Re:8 Corporatists try to twist CDA into control of OUR PUBLISHING!
How did "Communications Decency Act" get twisted into authorizing complete corporate control of The Public’s new forums?
"Immunize platforms so The Public can make use of the new medium for almost unlimited speech!", is what They SAID to LURE us into a trap. And now that they’ve obtained power, masnicks STATE that corporations have an absolute and pre-emptive "First Amendment right" to CONTROL.
No one thinks that "natural" persons on a "platform" have endorsement by the corporation. No one is mistaking the speech of "natural" persons for the corporation’s. The corporation is not in least impaired in getting its message out. — But what the corporatists want is to CONTROL "natural" persons.
The ultimate purpose of Masnick / EFF blather (both funded by Google) is to sweep on to:
They claim that corporations can use that "restrict access or availability of" clause to, whenever wish — even explicitly over YOUR First Amendment Rights — step in and EDIT comments by their own arbitrary standard, to point of becoming THE publisher, even to PREVENT we "natural" persons from publishing on "their" platforms at all!
But those are OUR platforms, The Public’s, NOT theirs.
Corporations are allowed (by The Public) merely to operate the machinery which is to convey The Public’s views. Corporations are NOT to control who gets on, nor WHAT The Public publishes, except under OUR common law terms.
But Masnick is for corporations CONTROLLING the speech and outlets of "natural" persons. He repeats it often, can’t be mistaken. From last year:
"And, I think it’s fairly important to state that these platforms have their own First Amendment rights, which allow them to deny service to anyone."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170825/01300738081/nazis-internet-policing-content-free-speech.shtml
Masnick is not hedging "lawyers say and I don’t entirely agree", or "that isn’t what I call serving The Public", but as VERY RARE for him STATES FLATLY. By deeming it a fundamental "Right", Masnick STATES that he wants a few corporations to have absolute and arbitrary control of ALL MAJOR outlets for The Public! He claims that YOUR Constitutional First Amendment Right in Public Forums are over-arched by what MERE STATUTE lays out!
Masnick flips the First Amendment from protection for "natural" persons into a POWER for use by corporations!
Such control (by ANY entity) to remove First Amendment Rights from The Public CANNOT be purpose of ANY statute. It’d be null and void because directly UN-Constitutional.
It’s NOT law, only the assertion of corporatists. No court has yet supported what Masnick claims. Corporatists are reaching for the moon without even a step-ladder. It’s simply a trick the New Fascists are trying to pull.
The provisions over-riding First Amendment Rights ONLY apply if done in "good faith" for The Public’s purposes. A corporation intent on stopping YOUR publishing in favor of its own views CANNOT be "good faith" for The Public, but only de facto tyranny and censorship.
Re: Re: Re:9 Corporatists try to twist CDA into control of OUR PUBLISHING
Facebook is not yours, Youtube is not yours.
If they don’t like you, they can ban you.
If some keeps yelling and saying stupid stuff inside your house, it’s perfectly okay to kick them out.
Re: Re: Re:8 The KEY trick: assert "editorial" control yet keep immunity:
Here it is cleverly worked in:
https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/2018/09/22/draft-order-for-trump-would-crack-down-on-google-facebook
NO! Totally negates the whole "platform" premise and asserts that hosting mechanisms are the actual editors!
Section 230 establishes The Public as Editors! "Platforms" are to be ONLY the technical means for conveying The Public’s Editorial choices.
CONVEYING, NOT CONTROLLING.
Section 230 is not difficult to understand. The content of a magazine IS the magazine, and can be mechanically printed on any number of presses, without the owner of the press being liable for the content. PERIOD.
Corporations which host "platforms" are exactly analogous to owners of a mechanical printing press. Printers do not have liability for what’s printed — within BROAD common law terms, and especially relevant on Techdirt: enforcing copyright law when obviously violated.
It’s ridiculous to hold a mechanism responsible: that’s what Section 230 immunizes against. But it’s even more ridiculous to hold that the owner of a printing press has total editorial control over magazine content.
But because The Internet blurs the line between mechanical and editorial, the corporate fiends now claim that owning the printing press DOES give them TOTAL editorial control over what WE want to publish!
Summary to here: For Section 230 immunity to be valid: 1) hosts must act in "good faith" according to common law standards, and 2) "platforms" are NOT to act as editors or publishers, are NEUTRAL / hands-off (again, by common law standards) with regard to persons and content.
Re: Re: Re:8 To "offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse."
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-12/google-vs-trump-good-censor-collision-course-patriot-president
Link to US code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
Prediction: corporations will increasingly censor "leftists"!
Sheerly a tactic to prove they’re "fair and balanced".
Corporations do not care about any ideology except money and power. They’ll happy sacrifice as many "left" voices as need in order to control ALL "natural" persons.
Businesses TRADE "private" for permission FROM The Public.
The first act of anyone wanting to form a corporation or go into business is to ASK permission from The Public through our Public Servants. We The People are the Master in all, and any business ranks WELL BELOW Our Officers. IF the business meets certain conditions including promises to SERVE The Public and OBEY our laws and regulations, THEN a business is granted LICENSE to exist (supposedly for limited time, but in practice, perpetual).
Businesses are LICENSED entities. A corporation of course has no actual "corpus", that’s the sheer FICTION. Next, calling them "persons" is only a convenience for language. It does not by some magic make a fiction equal to a Person. (And what’s a "Person"? Best answered by that there is only ONE "person" in the entire United Kingdom: the monarch. That’s why the USA was founded by FIRST stating "all men are created equal".)
ONLY WITH permission can a business open its doors and invite in The Public to buy and sell. — And if want to sell things like Liquor, there’s MORE licensing required. — The second doors open (during "business hours"), any "natural" person has a certain degree of "right" (during good behavior as defined in common law) to be on the formerly private property. (I simplify / ignore VAST area including frequent usage, easements bought / granted / eminent domain by which persons esp as Citzens gain a "right" to use or be on property of others.)
Similarly, corporations ASKED permission to exist, set up web-sites for serving The Public, INVITE them in — under terms stated by "forms contract" which means only the visible terms, not any hidden, or "unconscionable", and definitely not solely at discretion of any given corporation, let alone for later changes, but ALWAYS must be within common law.
Now, Corporations wangled Section 230 of the Communications Decency (note how that’s been forgotten!) Act to immunize them from what users might publish. This is COMPLETE change from the law print publishers must follow. Purpose was for good of The Public to use the new possibilities of communicating on the Internet.
The Deal was: in exchange for new business opportunities, We The People immunize businesses (within reasonable) for what’s on the sites.
Those are The Public’s sites on which to publish as wish (within common law as ALWAYS). The businesses provide only the technical "platform" to make it easy for us.
BUT NOW corporations are trying to claim that the policing requirements given above actually grant them absolute and arbitrary POWER OVER The Public’s speech.
This is the KEY power that Masnick wants and asserts in the quote above. Clearly, if that view is allowed to continue and grow, then We The People will effectively be subject to a new form of corporate royalty.
Re: Re: Re:8 Posting on a "private web-site" is NOT a "privilege",
any more than is reading it. THAT’S THE PURPOSE. Two-way communications is the key NEW feature of the internet.
1) What does "private" even mean when published to and invite entire world?
2) WHO owns a "web-site", anyway? Like physical business, if allow The Public in, then have CEDED some right to "private property". The Public gains, NOT loses. The deal is that businesses are permitted to exist (and use The Public’s infrastructure and marketplaces) only so long as serve The Public: when don’t, then permission to exist is withdrawn.
3) Where is this "corporation"? Show it to me. And UNDER WHAT PRIVILEGE AND RULES is it even allowed to exist? — By The Public giving it permission, and NOT for the gain of a few, but for PUBLIC USE.
4) Again, mere statute does not and CANNOT over-ride The Public’s Constitutional Right. And no, corporations are NOT persons, do not have rights, they are FICTIONS.
5) The Public’s use is the PURPOSE of any and every web-site. If allows comments, then it’s governed only by common law terms: no arbitrary exclusion. If comments are beyond common law acceptability (which allow odious), then REMOVE. Otherwise MUST REMAIN — and on equal basis with all others.
6) "Editorial control" of The Public’s speech by corporate "platforms" is EXACTLY what Section 230 is supposed to prevent! So of course it’s EXACTLY what corporations object to: they can’t stand ANY other views even being seen.
Masnick wants corporations to gain the new opportunities while yet keep old-fashioned full editorial control!
Yet fanboys promote mega-corporations to rule over themselves!
THAT is the BIG puzzle at Techdirt. What’s in it for fanboys? They’re happy to throw away their own First Amendment Rights! And another part of the US Constitution, too, which is interesting to compare: they say content producers have NO right to income from or control copies of creations, but these pirates then stand up for even larger corporations to control their own SPEECH!
ARE the fanboys real persons? They sure don’t act like it! On this KEY point, they always and uniformly parrot the line that sites have complete editorial control.
So what is the (mere) statute or court decisions that grant corporations the RIGHT to over-rule First Amendment to absolutely and arbitrarily exercise editorial control on "platforms" as Masnick says? — There is NONE! It’s just his assertion. — AND EVEN IF WERE, THAT CAN CHANGE.
WE THE PEOPLE DON’T HAVE TO SUBMIT TO CORPORATIONS! AT MOST, THAT’S MERE STATUTE!
Masnick never even states that there is an alternative way, doesn’t want it to appear on the site! — WHY is that, except he’s utterly dedicated to corporatism?
Masnick flatly states that corporations are now empowered to control ALL speech on the Internet, including "platform", search, registrar, advertising revenue, payment processor, all hosts… If that leaves anything it’s only maybe ISPs, but you then must pay business rate as home servers aren’t allowed. — And then you have one little IP address which isn’t in DNS nor will it come up in search engines: not just unknown but almost un-discoverable!
Yet you fanboys appear to still believe that Masnick is for Free Speech!
PS: editorial control is so highly desired that the fanboys here complain and attempt to coerce me from UPPER-casing my little bits of text as I want! Now scale that urge up to corporations controlling tens of billions of dollars: attempts to stifle ALL opposition to their self-serving notions is 100% CERTAIN.
Re: Re: Re:8
Masnick advocates CONTROL BY OPENLY POLITICIZED GATEKEEPERS.
Masnick extols the new wonders of "platforms" hosting free speech (of "natural" persons) on the Internet from the enabling statute CDA Section 230 — which immunizes the "platform" from liability that print publishers still have — then twists that into claim that corporations can STILL, like print publishers, exercise complete and arbitrary old-fashioned editorial control over what "natural" persons publish. All without any clear firm rules let alone using common law terms, and even in advance by deciding that some are "bad persons" whom they will not host.
Masnick’s view of Section 230 is NOT THE DEAL that The Public made in order to easily use the new Internet. It’s not even a "deal", it’s a power-grab totally in favor of unaccountable mega-corporations.
So WHY does he assert that corporations operating "platforms" are empowered to control the speech of "natural" persons? That’s EXACT OPPOSITE INTENT OF ALL LAW.
Only Mitt Romney and Mike Masnick will say that corporations are "persons" — Romney got roundly hooted for it, and Masnick only does it here in this little walled garden where he’s cultivated vegetables who don’t question him.
Masnick is a total corporatist. Only the mistaken presumption that he acts in "good faith" and shares YOUR views gives him any credibility. — Take away that presumption for a week, and READ what he writes: he’s very open about particularly that "platforms" have an alleged First Amendment Right to arbitrarily control access of we "natural" persons. Masnick believes not only that The Public can be denied access, but since Google controls search, that it can effectively "hide" speech even on alternative smaller outlets you’re forced to use. — Masnick uses "hiding" right here to disadvantage dissenters until they give up and quit commenting. He can thereby claim doesn’t censor.
Corporatists are going for TOTAL control over "natural" persons, period.
Re: Re: Re:8 Simply put: ANY entity that CAN control speech needs regulated.
First, here again is Masnick FLATLY stating that corporations have a superior Right to yours: "And, I think it’s fairly important to state that these platforms have their own First Amendment rights, which allow them to deny service to anyone."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170825/01300738081/nazis-internet-policing-content-free-speech.shtml
None of you would support the government having arbitrary and total power! Why the HELL do you support it for corporations?
This isn’t only about putting your views on a given "platform", and you could move to another: If corporations controlling the speech of "natural" persons is allowed to stand, then you have no Rights at all which are safe from corporate power! The Constitution won’t protect you at all!
Look at it with simple substitution: "These platforms have their own Fourth Amendment rights, which allow them to search anyone and their property including electronic devices, anytime, for any reason." — Do you accept that? — NO? (And I rule that any less than firm yes is a NO. This is separating you from "inalienable" Rights, not open for hedging.) — Then why accept the anti-Constitutional usurpation of your Right that Masnick asserts apply to Speech?
It’s the First Amendment because THE key to freedom. If you let corporate power grow as Masnick wants, then soon you will simply not be heard protesting that your other Rights are subject to corporate power.
Now, it’s time to decide: Is Masnick right, or am I? — Doesn’t matter to me which you choose! If you choose Masnick, then you fully deserve to be ground into sausage by corporations. — You are like the NPCs in Atlas Shrugged, to whom John Galt says: "You asked for it, brothers!"
That’s the lot. It’s a whole argument, not just passing opinion.
Re: Re: Re:9 Simply put: ANY entity that CAN control speech needs regulat
Thanks, new Techdirt mobile format, for making the malicious spam above be even more squashed on the right, and take many times more scrolling to flush past the drek to get back to the rest of the thread.
Re: Re: Re:9
Yes or no: Would your idea of “regulation” happen to be something like, say, “the platform in question must host my speech without censorship or moderation, regardless of how the owners and operators of that platform feel about me or my speech”?
Re: Re: Re:9 Simply put: ANY entity that CAN control speech needs regulat
Yes, regulation is needed! Oh, but wait. You killed net neutrality. Too bad for you!
Re: Re: Re:5
Pop quiz: If Stormfront admins use their “editorial control” to “disadvantage” the viewpoints of people who do not advocate for White supremacy — i.e., if they mute/ban people who disagree with Stormfront ideology — are they in violation of Section 230, and if so, how should they be punished?
I would not mind you being in any discussion if you were not the arrogant, condescending, “I’m right and you’re an asshole for daring to question my obviously flawless logic, so there” kind of jerk-off you have always been. (Calling people “Nazis” for daring to mock you? Yeah…)
You have a right to speak your mind. Now show me where that right entitles you to force others into being your audience even if they do not wish to hear what you have to say. Then show me how it applies to every other platform for speech, off- or online.
Even if that were true, in its Terms of Service, it points out that moderation is not censorship.
Eh, I’m more of a vulture who picks and chooses their moments.
I don’t read InfoWars. It’s a site full of conspiracy theory bullshit and alt-right apologia. I would rather stab myself in the eyes and ears, then have someone else cut off my hands before I ever read anything from InfoWars directly and with sincerity. A better question, though: Y U still here and not there, bruh?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
"I would rather stab myself in the eyes and ears, then have someone else cut off my hands before I ever read anything from InfoWars directly and with sincerity. A better question, though: Y U still here and not there, bruh?"
Because someone who specializes in projecting flaming turds as the core of his arguments won’t feel he makes the contribution a proper special snowflake should when everyone else on the particular forum applies the same tactic, and thus he needs to vent his irritable bowels on a board where he’s assured to be the only one with a leaky overheated ringpiece?
Being a screaming asshat is only fun if you’re doing it in the middle of a civilized crowd, after all.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
You’re disadvantaging your viewpoint by being a pompous dick. The solution seems easy. Let’s see if you can figure it out on your own. Good luck!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
"defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession;
you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express."
Re: Re: Re:3 Troll
So if I follow what you are saying, Google is under some sort of obligation to provide news on all topics, even ones that aren’t popular, or are false, defamatory, or otherwise un newsworthy?
Also – Google doesn’t carry news. It just aggregates. It pulls up a list of what it thinks are interesting. If you had a better way to aggregate – please show me your version.
Re: Re: Re:4 Troll
You don’t. You then paraphrase a straw-man.
Exactly. It controls what news is seen to keep everyone in a propaganda bubble. Thanks for confirming another bad aspect to Google.
Re: Re: Re:5 Troll
Hey Blue Straw – I asked for an example of how you think this is supposed to work. Way to deflect.
“Google Bad” is the beginning and end of your philosophy. You can’t seem to articulate how a search engine would work in your own words.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I find it odd that you’re ostensibly supporting the article above, which attacks Google, yet part of your position is diametrically opposed to what the article’s author is asking for. The article asks for Google/Facebook to censor sites and pick winners and losers.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I think you’ve tangled that too much for me to unscramble! It’s about a link tax, right? You have a frequent and really nasty underhanded technique of accusing ME of supporting Google! Just trust me on the point, Masnick, I DON’T wish ANY changes to help Google.
Not that I see AFTER reviewing with your charge in mind…
No, it doesn’t from what you give above. But:
A) could be PLOY by Google. Has its tentacles everywhere, plenty of money for bribes.
B) In any case, what I wish (Google broken up into TINY divisions) isn’t bound by that article, even if partly agree.
You’re stuck on the position that the internet MUST work as does now. It’s clearly not good for some, doesn’t serve all public purposes. It can be adjusted. Economics is mostly arbitrary, though those who are now in control ALWAYS seek to maintain their position, regardless whether serves civiliization and The Public.
YOU clearly wish Google to control all. You take its "sponsorship", so I don’t think should be casting aspersions on any critic without revealing that, it’s relevant.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Say, Masnick, while I have your attention:
WHY THE HIDING OF COMMENTS HERE WHICH ARE ON-TOPIC AND WELL WITHIN COMMON LAW?
That’s YOUR policy, done with code / design that you approve of. Don’t lie again that it’s "the community", nor try to maintain that you’re for "free speech" when can’t stand my little bits of text.
Just answer the upper-cased question.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
[asserts facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Now now, you can’t expect him to assert actual facts. Those would get in the way of his so-called “argument”.
Re: Re: Re:5
Show me where “common law” says someone cannot moderate comments sections based on political viewpoint or whether the poster is a demonstrative asshole.
I’ll wait.
Re: Re: Re:5 Common Troll!!!
Oh! Common law again!
Please explain where in the common law we have offended you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
Man, I am so sorry the first and last word have been used already – this shit is priceless. Blue has blown a fuse.
Moderating neither violates common law, nor CDA 230.
Please show us this website of yours that exists without moderation?
Re: Re: Re:5 What part(s) of common law?
Name which part(s) of common law you think hiding comments runs afoul of, then we’ll explain why hiding comments doesn’t violate it. Or if common law doesn’t have parts, explain exactly what you mean by common law. If you don’t provide any such info then the rest of of have no idea what you’re talking about, making it impossible to answer your uppercase challenge.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
A majority of readers of Techdirt deemed them to be well outside common wisdom.
And as other have pointed out, you are free to write whatever you want but you can’t force anyone to read it if they don’t want to.
When you manage to post something that is factual, logical and on point you may perhaps get the answers you seek, but I don’t have any high hopes for that to happen soon…
Re: Re: Re:6
Nor can he force anyone to publish/host it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Oh, it’s "Rocky", a Techdirt stalwart defending the site. (I’ve concluded this name is astro-turfing, by the way. Since I suppressed nearly all zombies here that have mysterious gaps of years in accounts, a number of new screen names have popped up: "qwertygiy" and Rocky among them, which are ardent supporters without even quibbling on topics.)
A MAJORITY? PROVE THAT, stating how you get that alleged info. Because inside knowledge is consistent with "you" being astro-turfing. — You may well be able to, though, because are so few readers! — Until then, you are just lying.
Irrelevant. All I’m asking is to not have viewpoint discriminated against without good clear cause in common law — which is simple fairness and decency for purpose here: The Golden Rule. Diversity of opinion in that case should be routine on a "free speech" site, but this is Techdirt, with an agenda to support, and so dissent is suppressed.
Now, "Rocky", you only gave me opportunity to get in some extra digs that I believe are true and any observer will be able to see over time, so why not take old advice and IGNORE those yoiu deem insane? You don’t seem to trust that others can reach same conclusion, and in any case are no more troubled than to flick eyes past when find me so.
Re: Re: Re:7 Show it or stow it, kid.
All we’re asking for is the “common law” citation that says your viewpoint cannot be discriminated against — or, failing that, the citation that says you can force Techdirt to publish your comments and keep them unflagged.
Re: Re: Re:8 Show it or stow it, kid.
Clearly, the fact is that CAN (on this one tiny site): I’m arguing that isn’t in accord with The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Now, on this one tiny little site, it’s no big deal either way, merely goes flatly against Masnick’s stated advocacy of "free speech", proving him a LIAR. But I don’t have any actual lever to use, or would have.
But it’s actually YOU who need to prove a cause in common law.
I’m not forcing Techdirt to do anything: it provides a plain HTML box and accepts all comments without reserving ANY right.
A business (which Techdirt is, it’s a fiction that exists only on paper) needs good cause — let’s go to physical where unquestioned that YOU have a right to walk around on a business property that invites you (that’s a Right to private property which the business has ceded to The Public in hopes of gain), until give CAUSE to be thrown out. Business and society cannot work any other. The Internet is NO different. Masnick is not King merely because pays for a web-site (that doesn’t support itself). Masnick / Techdirt invite me and everyone in, THEN cheat and discriminate against viewpoint they don’t like.
Masnick LIES that it’s "the community" with a "voting system" — without any up votes even possible! Techdirt provides the means and an Administrator approves, so it’s another LIE that the site isn’t moderating.
The Supreme Court is waiting for a case to resolve Section 230. I’ve tried to set Techdirt up for it by nailing down all points where it could wiggle.
By the way: what do you think of Masnick omitting the "in good faith" requirement when he quoted Section 230 above? Does that show "good faith"? — NO, so under the very Section 230, Techdirt has NO right to moderate!
Re: Re: Re:9 Good cause
My understanding is that a business can throw you off their property for any reason as long as that reason doesn’t fall afoul of any specific laws. For example, it would be illegal for a business to throw out disabled people because of ADA, but they’d be legally in the clear to throw out left handed people because there isn’t any law protecting left handed people. If you have any examples to the contrary, please cite them.
Re: Re: Re:9 Oh, this'll be fun.
The Golden Rule is neither common law nor constitutional law. It is an ethos for living, but no law says it must be followed “or else”.
The First Amendment and its promise of free speech and expression lacks a clause that gives anyone, in any way, the right to force their speech onto someone else’s platform. It also lacks a clause that gives anyone the right to force other people into being an audience. Any advocacy for the freedom of speech must begin with that knowledge. Yours, it seems, is lacking in that regard.
You made the claims about common law without providing any factual information to back up either your claims about common law vis-á-vis the hiding of your comments or how your definition of the phrase “common law” overrides the existing definition (which you can find on Wikipedia). The burden of proof for a claim lies on the person who made it — and in this case: your claim, your burden.
At the moment? No, you are not. And yet, every comment where you complain about your comments being flagged and hidden contains an implicit demand that Techdirt admins manually unflag you. Every accusation of “censorship” that you fling around is an implicit cry for Techdirt to give you special treatment that no one else gets. (I have had comments flagged before, after all.) Every temper tantrum you throw about “unfairness” is you wanting Techdirt admins/the comment section to stop moderating as they see fit and moderate in a way that is fair only to you.
And given all that, I would bet even money that if you thought for even a second — one single second! — you could legally force Techdirt to unflag your comments despite the site having every legal right to flag them, you would pull that lever without hesitation because you think you deserve that kind of power. Of this, I have no doubts.
Sites like StormFront and InfoWars do the same thing; what is stopping you from going to them, delivering the same complaints about “viewpoint discrimination”, and begging them to let your comments go uncensored even if those sites do not want to have your comments displayed? What makes those sites, on the most fundamental of levels, any different than Techdirt?
So what if the system lacks an “upvote” option?
…and? Techdirt admins are legally allowed to moderate the comments section however they wish (within the boundaries of the law). If “viewpoint discrmination” is somehow illegal on Techdirt, it becomes illegal on all other sites — and being able to force a platform into hosting speech its owners do not want displayed from that platform flies in the face of the First Amendment (not that you seem to care).
You have clearly failed, or else you would do something other than yell threats about legal action against Mike — which is a form of impotence matched only by sexual impotence. (When did you stop taking Viagra, by the way?)
Show me where he acted in bad faith, how his actions have truly silenced you, how any moderation here on Techdirt breaks an actual law or violates an actual statute, and how you could possibly win a case in a civil court over the supposed “censorship” of which you have supposedly been the victim, and I’ll tell you what I think.
…oh, fuck it, you’ll never be able to do any of that, so I’ll spill the beans now: It is immaterial to the discussion.
And now, so are you.
Re: Re: Re:10 Oh, this'll be fun.
The "Golden Rule" is part of a Jewish conspiracy–to make racial/ethnic distinctions irrelevant to moral actions.
Re: Re: Re:9 Show it or stow it, kid.
Blue, you have already given plenty of cause to be thrown out.
If you don’t believe me, go into any restaurant an behave like you do here at Techdirt. Criticize and insult the owner making sure to tell him how to run his restaurant, insult the patrons (fanboys!) and scream out random words during your conversation (CAPS!) and see how long before you are asked to leave.
Re: Re: Re:10 Show it or stow it, kid.
Flag says "abusive/trolling/spam" – and therefore I throw the flags based on abusive behavior.
Re: Re: Re:10 Show it or stow it, kid.
I DO! And yet never even been noticed! Fact is that I’m among the most restrained.
Now, YOU made no contemporary objection to:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/16071614792/misconceptions-free-abound-why-do-brains-stop-zero.shtml#c1869
And STILL make no objection to it.
Show where I’m below that line.
Why didn’t and doesn’t "ignorant motherfucker" (in case at link not even part of ongoing exchange) offend "the community" standard?
Because you pirate-fanboy-trolls actually can’t stand my DISSENTING VIEWPOINT, nothing else.
Re: Re: Re:11 Show it or stow it, kid.
Flagged for abusive behavior. Have a nice day.
Re: Re: Re:11 Show it or stow it, kid.
Are you really that dense? There is a huge difference between being an obtuse asshole, day in and day out and some swear words.
Bullshit. I’ve had thousand word discussions with AJ (like the one you linked to) who’s viewpoints I absolutely detested. We disagreed, but were still able to remain mostly cordial. Pretty sure the problem is on your end, Sparky.
Re: Re: Re:12 Show it or stow it, kid.
You types ALWAYS project. And ad hom. And can’t stay on the title topic because you LOSE on it.
Re: Re: Re:13 Show it or stow it, kid.
Not projecting, the preceding sentences provided evidence to the claim, Sherlock.
And "pirate-fanboy-trolls" should be considered a compliment, Einstein?
Re: Re: Re:14 Show it or stow it, kid.
Yes, take it so, as I take "Einstein" as merely my deserved due.
Re: Re: Re:15 Show it or stow it, kid.
See, blue – when you choose to make "bad faith" in fair use denial difficult to prove or establish, because you favor corporations, it turns out that when you scream "bad faith" in turn, nobody cares. It’s that simple. Hell, breathing is more difficult than not giving a care what you think.
How’s that Prenda Law defense fund coming along, by the way?
Re: Re: Re:12
For starters, the swear words are more fun to read.
Re: Re: Re:9 Show it or stow it, kid.
Masnick LIES that it’s "the community" with a "voting system" — without any up votes even possible! Techdirt provides the means and an Administrator approves, so it’s another LIE that the site isn’t moderating.
What do you think the report button is for, troll?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
We all know how accurate your conclusions are. The thing is, if we go over all my posts we would quickly discover that I usually point out flaws in reasoning, conclusions without proof, factual errors and in general rip into asshattery posts. If you feel that is defending the site..well, that’s your choice but it doesn’t make it true because belief is not facts.
Alleged info? Did you really use those words? You who can’t even manage to present verifiable facts for almost anything you write?
And you even prove my point, if there are few readers as you say we MUST conclude that a majority of them flags your posts. And if there are many readers some would click the other buttons if they think your posts are in the other categories but your posts still get flagged which means . . . . a majority clicks the flag button!
The f*cking "common law" shit. You’ve been told again and again that is not how it works. And diversity of opinion – we have already established that if anyone doesn’t agree with you, you pronounce them to be liars and filthy pirates which should be thrown in jail among other unflattering things. You choose to go down that route – it’s no wonder you find the atmosphere here lacking in cordiality.
You believe many things to be true that have been proven to be false so your track-record to date what is true or not is abysmal which any observer would have discovered.
On a final note, did you know that Techdirt as a site is ranked ~12100 in the US and ~35600 in the whole world and about ~24% of visitors come from India for some strange reason. It has a bounce rate of about 61% and about 35000 unique visitors per day.
By now I’m expecting you to be frothing a bit and just itching to proclaim that I’m an atro-turfer in techdirts employment, but sadly, I have to disappoint you – I’m just relaying facts from alexa.com.
Well, it was fun but now I have to go since I need to shovel some snow from my parking which is much more fulfilling than to shovel bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Yup, ALLEGED INFO. See the words again?
You make no attempt to back up what you say, just go on at length with ad hom.
This REALLY gets the fanboys going, because if my premises are accepted, then all else follows.
For the rest: actuality is that you kids abuse me or any dissent, starting way back, with impunity because the site / Masnick not only let you but provide a way to disadvantage me too:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/16071614792/misconceptions-free-abound-why-do-brains-stop-zero.shtml#c1869
And in any case, I CAN comment here, and am going to, in the inviting plain HTML box. Get Masnick to fix that, will you? Wasting too much time here, particularly today!
Re: Re: Re:9
Your mental illness is not his problem.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
You have the right to screech like a monkey if you so desire to.
You don’t have the right to force us to listen.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
First, I would like to point out that YOUR comment is not on-topic.
Secondly, knowing that you use the ancient, outdated definition of "common law", I have to point out that village idiots in the times that your definition was in use were often physically abused and sometimes killed for spouting nonsense. You should be happy that all this village does is hide your nonsense behind an extra mouse click.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
First, here’s you giving a PRIOR to common law notion of "natural law":
"But not the natural rights to copy and distribute. Those existed prior to copyright law and exist with or without copyright. Copyright restricts those rights by law, that’s all. Once a work is released beyond the original author, the natural rights of copying and distribution exist. Period. The only way to truly restrict those rights on a particular work is to lock that work in your bottom desk drawer and never let anyone else see it."
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130116/09224321702/just-as-many-musicians-say-file-sharing-helps-them-as-those-who-say-it-hurts.shtml#c2063
Common law is as up-to-date as tomorrow because ETERNAL TRUTH. Basis of equality stated in the US Constitution. You are trying to undermine it merely to win a point on this tiny site.
You can point, but are wrong / lying as usual, and are definitely not on-topic yourself.
Re: Re: Re:7 Natural law vs common law
But then
If common law is an "eternal truth", then how is natural law prior to it?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
And this proves what, exactly? I was in a discussion and was talking about the basic, ingrained human instincts of imitation and dissemination of information that have existed forever and used the term "natural rights" (not "natural law") for lack of a better term.
Crazy word salad. Response not required.
Oh, I’ve never complained about being off-topic, nor do I aspire to stay on-topic myself. I was just pointing out your hypocrisy. Intelligent conversations are fluid and the tangents can be more interesting than the original topics. Some of the best discussions I’ve had here have had absolutely nothing to do with the article they were on.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
First, here’s you giving a PRIOR to common law notion of "natural law":
That you assert nutty ideas out of the blue about "law" that you just made up, exactly as you accused me of.
I’ll say you don’t. Topic you raised was common law, and you just dodge trying to answer, instead blather.
I doubt you aspire to anything. You were (or so stated in one thread that I have on tap) waiting tables in the early 80’s (when you by other statements were over 30!), so likely just waited around for parents to die so you could drink up what they earned.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
You are an idiot, Blue. I was in my late teens/early twenties when I waited tables in the early eighties. It was how I paid for my college tuition for the two years I attended before landing the corporate position I held and advanced in for 16 years.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
And we have your word for that…
But here you are waiting tables in early 80s:
"As far back as the early 80’s when I waited tables…"
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110226/12362613267/dailydirt-leaving-good-tip.shtml#c331
Gwiz sez: "at the time, I was being declared a dependent on my parents tax returns and my father’s accountant prepared my tax returns."
which doesn’t fit the early 80’s and a statement years back (years before 2017) to me that he was 60-something. (Can’t find that right off, BUT will try again if you assert different.)
You were once outraged at me calling you "sonny", wanted to be thought older to win even that tiny point.
You can settle this by stating that you’re — let’s use 1983, so 17 + 18 = 35 — then only a maximum (early 20’s, say, 23 + 35) of 58 now?
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
Lol Blue. I’ve never said I was 60-something (which is why you can’t find it). And yes, I assumed that I was older than you due to the fact that you express yourself like a petulant child most times.
I have nothing to settle with you. I purposely leave my private information somewhat vague online to protect my anonymity because there are creeps out there building dossiers on other people for unknown reasons.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Found it. You wrote:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/16071614792/misconceptions-free-abound-why-do-brains-stop-zero.shtml#c1653
CLEARLY YOU STATE THAT ARE 65 in 2011.
You can waffle now, but it’s a waffle.
THEREFORE, 2011 – 65 = 1946
1983 (again, just in early 80s) – 1946 = 37.
You were EITHER waiting tables in your 30s, OR you LIED that were 65 in 2011 so that I wouldn’t call you "sonny".
By the way, in the previous link to you, "ottermaton" accused you of NAGGING hims and making stuff up just to win on the topic.
Now, since you regard me as crazy, just take that as said, and try to wiggle out of the numbers.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
That comment does not state his age, bur rather puts an age floor on people he considers entitles to call him sonny. So once again you are misrepresenting what some said.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
Lol again, Blue. Reread my quote, fool. I never claimed to be 65 at all.
I was implying that unless you are 20 years or so my senior (you know, the age between fathers and SONS) the label "Sonny" doesn’t really fit the situation, but go ahead and enjoy your conspiracy delusions all the same.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
Yeah, well, the numbers you gave show that you’re a liar somewhere.
And your slip is due to objecting at very mild pejorative. Continuing childish focus shows I aptly call you "sonny".
Here’s the difference between us, sonny: you just snipe and snipe, majority of your comments back then were ad hom at me. Now and then blockquote a law case to appear knowledgeable, are clearly an ardent pirate, I deduce because poor due to alcohol abuse, but if not, then sheerly a thief. It’s easy on teh internets when don’t actually state anything. And it’s very easy to be pirate / anarchist / doper here among ankle-biter peers.
You’re glib and snarky, utterly smug in exactly the way you accuse me, asserting you’re above the fray of ordinary religion with a buddhist view, for instance. You happily admit that often go off-topic, which means that Techdirt’s focus has little interest for you, besides showing how your mind wanders.
You have NO SUBSTANCE, another charge you object to because accurate. You’ve spent much time enjoying empty entertainments and vaguely grasp how it was wasted.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
Nope.
As clearly shown by the previous post the numbers are fully consistent, your just not capable of properly understand their comments.
All you do is make baseless personal attacks.
Here you accuse them of being and alcoholic and a theif.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
"because there are creeps out there building dossiers on other people for unknown reasons."
Sadly, most of the time the people building dossiers are doing that for quite known reasons.
Blue/bobmail knows this, of course, which is why he is VERY careful not to provide any personal information of his own.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
WHY THE HIDING OF COMMENTS HERE WHICH ARE ON-TOPIC AND WELL WITHIN COMMON LAW?
The community says your comments are worth reporting. It’s pretty obvious why. You argue in a bad faith, trollish manner.
And "common law" means the court’s interpretation of the law. Your usage here is nonsense and suggests you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Of course, this has been explained to you many times, yet you keep repeating it, which (again) highlights why your comments here are trollish and in bad faith.
That’s YOUR policy, done with code / design that you approve of. Don’t lie again that it’s "the community", nor try to maintain that you’re for "free speech" when can’t stand my little bits of text.
The community votes. And they’ve voted that they find you trollish because you are trollish. Don’t like it? Fuck off.
And I don’t think you understand what "free speech" means. Go say whatever you want. I have literally zero obligation to keep it on my site. However, because we’re so supportive of free speech unlike almost EVERY OTHER SITE OUT THERE, we actually still let you keep your speech on this platform. The community hides it as a way to let you know that they know you’re full of shit. Because you are.
I know you’ve been trolling this site for years and, while I have your attention, could you answer me why? I mean, it’s obvious that no one could possibly be as stupidly ignorant as the character(s) you play on this site regularly. Is it really fun to act like a totally clueless, but full of himself, putz every day on someone else’s site? I swear you must spend more time on this site than I do… which is saying something.
Re: Re: Re:6 In re: blue
Then again, I’ve seen people doing that plenty of times, so IDK. Maybe some people like getting a reaction.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Hoots.
A TINY portion is schtick, which I should avoid.
But as to the pro-American pro-Constituion, Common Law parts, it’s that YOU are simply unaware of what middle America is like. I’m entirely average out here.
Say, Masnick: tell us how you understand the "jaunes gilets" of France, which is a vast Populist movement that has most of its ideology clear, yet came out of the blue to oppose globalism? Big talk at Davos this year was on how Populism is growing, to their vexation.
You Ivy Leaguers just simply don’t understand that your notions are NOT law. You have to sneak around even here, hiding your connections to Google in every topic where it’s relevant.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
If part of your schtick is not naming which parts of common law you mean and/or not specifying what you mean by "common law", then yes, you definitely SHOULD avoid it.
Re: Re: Re:8 Common law is NO part of "schtick".
I should by now know better than admitting anything more than that I’m seated in a chair.
All after your "if" is just useless for everyone.
Re: Re: Re:9 Common law is NO part of "schtick".
Wait, it’s useless for you to specify which parts of common law you’re referring to and/or to specify exactly what you mean by common law? Personally, I think it would be useful to me to understand what exactly what you mean.
Re: Re: Re:10 Common law is NO part of "schtick".
Which parts are evident by topic. Exactly what I mean is in the US Constitution.
If you do not understand that Common Law authorizes the Constitution and that We The People through it authorize the gov’t to even exist, then you’re hopeless, have too much to un-learn.
Now, say, on Section 230: read my long line of replies to Masnick up there and see what parts you can argue. That’s based on common law. NO statute can undermine the Constitution, therefore no matter what the text is, Masnick is wrong that corporations can arbitrarily control MY First Amendment speech even on "platforms". The very notion that’s what statute enables is offensive. It’s the textual equivalent of "The Enabling Act" in Nazi Germany, which "legalized" everything, so the Jews actually have no case IF Common Law weren’t valid everywhere at all times. Not hyperbole. We in the US are not corporate serfs, either.
This now frequent "what the hell do you mean by common law" attack is useless. It’s YOU who are ignorant, then. OR you’re simply trying to waste my time with LONG exposition that you won’t read, anyway, because might end up agreeing.
Re: Re: Re:11 Common law is NO part of "schtick&q
Yeah, that statement makes no sense to me. Is there a website, book or author that explains what you mean? Is your position similar to that of Sovereign Citizens or Freemen on the Land? If so, is there a particular variety of them that are closest to your positions?
If there’s some websites/books/authors which explains what you mean I’ll be happy to read them rather than pester you for an explanation.
I can understand the position "corporations aren’t people, therefore they don’t have First Amendment protections, therefore [fill in the blank]". However, that doesn’t seem to be the point you’re making. I can also understand the position that Facebook/Twitter/etc are so big and important that they can restrict free speech even though they aren’t the government, and thus should be regulated like common carriers. However, Techdirt isn’t anywhere near that big. Also Techdirt and Facebook/Twitter/etc aren’t a part of the government, to which the First Amendment applies. Of course, the issue of free speech is larger than just the First Amendment, but you specifically referred to your First Amendment rights.
Re: Re: Re:12 Common law is NO part of "schti
Self-evident. What else authorizes it than the will of The People?
You admit ignorance. I’m not a liberrry. (library, because you’ll point that out)
Sheesh. It is. Now, since you didn’t bother to read it up there, here is Masnick’s position on exactly the point:
"And, I think it’s fairly important to state that these platforms have their own First Amendment rights, which allow them to deny service to anyone."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170825/01300738081/nazis-internet-policing-content-free-speech.shtml
Masnick’s view is that corporations are indeed empowered to control MY First Amendment Rights — which exist everywhere, and most particularly on the very "platform" that 230 authorizes for the purpose. — READ. UP. THERE. You are simply wasting my time.
Doesn’t matter. Southern lunch counters weren’t massive cordon bleu restaurants, yet they NOW cannot refuse service to anyone based on skin color, or even any other quality if don’t have "we reserve the right" sign up. — Techdirt does not state that anywhere, therefore reserves no right to edit my comments with warning and requiring an extra click.
And you’re such a hide-bound moron that can’t see it applies to every "natural" person? C’mon. You’re a regular here, are now just baiting and/or trying to exhaust my patience.
Re: Re: Re:13 Common law is NO part of &qu
Then what about on a private blog, where the blog owner decides to ban you from the comments section or arbitrarily deletes some of your comments? Is the blog owner violating your First Amendment rights? Or does the blog owner’s First Amendment rights override yours, so there is no rights violation(s)?
Re: Re: Re:14 Common law is NO part of &am
Techdirt, the instant case, is NOT a "private blog"! SEE, I AM TYPING INTO IT. Techdirt has ceded some degree of right to The Public, which is as Section 230 intends, to make Public Forums FOR The Public, NOT so that Techdirt or any other entity can PREVENT my free speech.
Re: Re: Re:15
There you go confusing “private” with “privately owned” again.
Re: Re: Re:15
Also:
Please show me the law, statute, or court ruling that says you can force a privately-owned platform — even one that is open to the public — to publish and display your speech against the will of that platform’s owners and operators.
Oh, and show me the law, statute, or court ruling that says a privately-owned platform that is open to the public is the exact same thing as a platform owned by the public/government.
Make your citation as detailed and on-point as possible. And cite an actual law, statute, or court case — not your interpretation of one, not your “idea” of one, and not your “feeling” that one exists. Use factual citations, not fictional ones.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
That’s what CDA Section 230 actually authorizes: it’s a deal for sites to "tolerate" association in exchange for The Public to have access.
Here’s the one that you didn’t bother to read up there:
Directly as to whether statute authorizing "platforms" (the buzzword will do here) and yet allowing them total arbitrary control:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-4155/16-4155-2018-02-09.html
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
In a sense, you are correct: CDA 230 frees up platforms to host everyone’s speech by immunizing platforms from legal liability for most kinds of speech — and from any liability that might arise when a platform moderates third-party speech. But just because the general public can use a privately-owned-and-operated service such as Twitter does not negate Twitter’s right to set standards for that usage (terms of service) and give the boot to (ban) anyone who breaks those standards.
Hell, I ran a furry imageboard for more than a few years. If your interpretation of 230 held true, I would likely still be innundated with lawsuits from the dozens of people I banned during that time — especially since most of them didn’t post anything that would be considered “actionable” speech.
So please, show me the law, statute, or court ruling — with a proper citation — that says someone can use 230 to force a platform into displaying that someone’s speech. I’ll wait.
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
Again, doesn’t "negate": it still has authority under common law terms, but you admit that purpose of Section 230 is for The Public. I have at last split you off from Masnick’s absolutist position that 230 only empowers corporations to arbitrarily prohibit the very access that it’s intended to create. No, Masnick makes no such concession, despite articles here — when serves his purpose — questioning corporate power in these kind of sitches.
("Sitches" is a colloquial affectation. I often lapse into vernacular, which I always think obvious… But bet you have to look them words up.)
Re: Re: Re:19
230 benefits the public by allowing services such as Twitter to stay open, yes. But the true purpose of 230 is to allow services such as Twitter to even exist; Zeran vs. America Online, Inc. made sure of that (“Congress recognized the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium. … Section 230 was enacted, in part, to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication”).
230 empowers anyone with a website to open up comments or accept third-party submissions. Corporations just happen to have the most visible of such websites and services (and they happen to have more money with which to defend their 230 rights, which helps protect those rights for everyone else). Like I said, I ran a furry imageboard once; 230 empowered me to run that site without worrying about someone holding me legally liable for, say, the site being spammed with links to illegal content (and I don’t mean “pirated furry porn”). That immunity also empowered me to let people post content without holding it back for exhaustive pre-posting moderation, then moderate it later as I saw fit.
I’m not gonna call you, I’m not gonna beep you, and I’m never gonna need to reach you, Kimmie.
Re: Re: Re:20 Re:
WHOSE "freedom of speech"? Not the corporations, they’re merely the hosts. — The Public’s, of course.
Now, if corporations pose a threat to The Public’s "freedom of speech", then don’t you agree that it’s time for legislation to clarify that? — You keep demanding cases, but this topic IS percolating through Congress rat now.
Re: Re: Re:21 Re:
Show me the threat to free speech posed by a single corporate-owned platform booting a single person off that platform for saying something that went against the platform’s terms of service (but is otherwise legally protected speech), and I’ll have that discussion with you. But until you can show me how Twitter booting Alex Jones for his Sandy Hook trutherism is threatening to silence him on every other platform in the world (including his own platform, Infowars), that discussion is not going to happen.
Re: Re: Re:22 Re:
Umm, okay. Demanding a highly specific stymies me.
Clearly you aren’t much of a "free speech" advocate, though, or just such a simpleton that can’t project the logical next step. As I’ve said, you clowns think that the corporations side with you, that you’re on the winning side, but they do not care, will change "ideology" whenever serves their interests. A version of "we were always FOR Alex Jones" could happen, ’cause fascism is lots handier for authoritarians than "socialism".
And again, you’re FOR corporations WHY? Other than to "win" the argument here?
Re: Re: Re:23
I am unsurprised.
Any corporation would sooner stomp on my neck and ask me to pay for the privilege of being under that boot than treat me like a human being. Corporations are fundamentally sociopathic; they are certainly not friends to the general public.
I am for Alex Jones having the right to speak his dumbass mind all he wants. Where you and I differ, however, is with the notion that he should be able to force any platform he does not own/operate into hosting his speech without question even if the admins of those other platforms do not want his speech associated with those platforms. You believe he should have that right — which, I would assume, you would apply just as equally to yourself if he wanted to post his speech on a platform you own, operate, and keep open for public submissions. I, on the other hand, think he can go back to Infowars and stay the fuck there.
Re: Re: Re:24 Re:
They’re not forced. They can stay with the prior control of publishers. But if they choose immunity then they’re NOT publishers and must not have control over what Jones says.That’s free speech. That’s the purpose of Section 230. What you and Masnick advocate is corporate control.
Now, again, ALL access to the Internet is through corporations, so you’ve NO problem with YOUR speech being totally excluded? It’s not likely at present, but as with the dozen that acted against Jones all at once, it’s power that corporations hold right now.
Re: Re: Re:25
Twitter does not control what Alex Jones says — it controls whether he can say it on Twitter. Replace “Twitter” with “Tumblr”, “4chan”, “Facebook”, or any other platform that Jones does not own and the statement remains true. 230 allows for that. Show me where it doesn’t — because any assertion that 230 does not is an assertion that Jones can literally force a third-party platform to host his speech against the wishes of that platform’s owners.
I take issue with the idea that my speech could be silenced if an ISP/a hosting company/a domain registrar were to decide that my speech is worthy of being yanked off the Internet for good. That, I will fight against.
But if Twitter wants to ban me for hollering at Donald Trump, I will give Jack the finger and walk backwards to another platform. Not my platform, not my right to force them into hosting my bullshit. The same goes for you.
Re: Re: Re:26 Internet Forums and Platforms are FOR THE PUBLIC.
NOT ARBITRARILY. Any more than a physical business is allowed to. The forums are made for The Public. The torts problem was solved with immunity. No authority was granted Twitter to control anyone’s speech. That’s common law. No authority was granted Twitter to "deplatform" because don’t like anyone’s politics. That’s mere assertion of masnicks. To hold otherwise is to set up complete corporate control. I don’t want that. Do you? Just say yes. You know you want to, just to try and rile me.
Similarly, ALL businesses in the US must serve The Public’s interest or will be taken apart. The law on that is clear too, even if you don’t know and I’m too lazy to show.
Masnick is trying to inflict a literally German view of law on us: merging corporation and state. The obvious result of Masnick’s views will be corporate censorship, not technically by the gov’t so it’s okay, right, even with same effect on you?
Re: Re: Re:27
Cite the law, statute, or court ruling that says any and all online forums/comments sections/services such as Twitter absolutely cannot give someone the boot over an expressed political belief. Then show me where someone has used that law, statute, or court ruling to successfully sue a platform over an “arbitrary” ban based on an expressed political belief — say, where someone managed to sue 4chan over getting banned from /pol/ and win the case.
I’ll wait.
Re: Re: Re:28 Re:
No, again, you’re asserting a positive.
The dispositive is so engrained in American law that it doesn’t need to be written.
Now, cases are difficult because corporations are sneaky, just like you, slanting everything their way, having their power without making anything too clear, so that vague notions of "fair" just almost can’t be brought into play even when wrongs are clear.
Corporate power is more like lynching: they wear hoods and all stick together against "natural" persons, are in the power structure and we’re not, and so on. I tell you, civilization is fragile and the powers against it large. And sneaky. Best to play it safe here, and limit corporations short of Masnick’s views, wouldn’t you say?
Re: Re: Re:26 Re:
So you agree with me again. Progress.
Very brave of you, but the sitch I foresee is that ALL refuse "service" to you. Now what? You are silenced, an unperson, can’t even complain. No court will hear your plea if law is as you say. Why do you argue for that? Except to more slowly lose against my well-reasoned, comprehensive argument?
Re: Re: Re:27 Re:
Two things.
So what?
Re: Re: Re:28 Re:
1) I was using sitch before "Kim Possible". — Why must you drag in trivial CRAP? Stay on topic.
2) Very brave of you, but the sitch I foresee is that ALL refuse "service" to you. — How do you manage to quote that, then ignore it?
Re: Re: Re:25 Re:
NO the purpose of section 230 is to allow platforms to moderate content on them with opening themselves up to liability.
Re: Re: Re:26 You are directly refuted, "blademan9999"
To "offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse."
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-12/google-vs-trump-good-censor-collision-course-patriot-president
Link to US code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
SO, NOT TO MODERATE, BUT TO ALLOW.
You’re yet another suspect semi-zombie: 37 comments in 4 years, and just "happen" to lurch into this one with the usual bland supportive of site ad-hom-ish…
Re: Re: Re:27 You are directly refuted, "blademan9999&quo
Nope it was specifically for the purpose of allowing them to moderate.
It specifically says that in actual law.
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
READ. WHAT. JUST. PUT. UP.
It’s exactly apposite, cable TV, private owned yet public has a Right to access it regardless of corporate wishes. — Though the right case for 230 has yet to percolate through to Supreme Court. But sites cannot be both immunized AND have total control. That’s not what was intended. Nor, is the resulting censorship by corporations.
EVERY access you make to the Internet is by way of a corporation. Logically, your position is that if ANY of those choose to not allow your speech, then you’ve NO recourse. And corporations — being "persons" — can band together to effectly blacklist you.
Okay? Fine with that?
Re: Re: Re:19
Except…yeah, that was what was intended. 230 immunized sites from legal liability so long as the owners/operators of the sites didn’t either directly post, or directly facilitate a third party’s posting of, illegal content. So long as a platform such as Twitter doesn’t set standards that fall outside of current law (e.g., they can’t ban people based on their race), that platform’s owners and operators can absolutely control what is and is not “acceptable” speech.
If you believe otherwise, please — show me the law, statute, or court ruling that says someone from the “general public” can force a platform to publish and display that someone’s speech even if that platform’s owners/operators do not want that speech on said platform. I’ll wait.
Re: Re: Re:20 Re:
No, no. You’ve asserted. YOU must show that. CDA Section 230 makes no such limitation.
And again, you are WRONG when use the word "absolute" so carelessly right after stating a limitation.
And again, I DON’T CARE what current interpretation is, any more than you care for the forfeiture laws and whatever else. If not right, then needs changed. That’s the American way, right from the start.
For some ODD reaason, you’re just utterly committed to arguing that you’re a serf. I do want to help YOU be a serf, but not myself. So, obey corporate masters all you want, even if they take your rights away in practice. Enjoy. But don’t complain when They come for you, and they won’t let you, anyway.
Re: Re: Re:21 Re:
You can look at how Twitter currently operates to see my assertion in action. I’ve gotten dinged for using swear words in tweets aimed at Verified™ accounts. I’ve seen people dinged for posting “trebuchet TERFs”. I’ve also seen lots of accounts dinged for racist speech, homophobic speech, and other such offensive-yet-legal speech. Barring the obvious exception of unprotected/“illegal” speech, the United States government cannot force Twitter to cede control over what is and is not “acceptable speech” on the platform any more than you can.
No shit.
You talk of wanting to change 230. What changes would you make to it, and how would those changes ensure that platforms retain the right to moderate third-party speech without losing the right to decide what speech is and is not acceptable on that platform? For example: If Twitter wanted to suspend a user for saying “faggot”, even though it is technically protected speech under the First Amendment, would your proposed changes to 230 allow or deny Twitter the right to suspend that user and add that word to a list of “unacceptable” language?
Re: Re: Re:22 Re:
Be patient. Took the US four score years to settle the obvious evil of slavery.
Changes are simple and "free speech" is already defined in law. No, you cannot go into a crowded theater and shout "Fire!" to cause a panic, no matter how Poophat tries to slice that into a dozen legal hairs. Similarly, "everyone knows" what’s acceptable speech. You are often beyond it with childish vulgarity.
Now, if your notion that the gov’t (the agent of We The People) can’t force one little corporation to change its ways and do its duty to merely host free speech (under common law terms which are CLEAR in law even if you don’t know them) and without implementing its own political agenda to "deplatform", then I’ll be surprised. Just requires public support.
You are not helping make Twitter serve The Public, instead argue for the rights of corporations even to your own disadvantage. Why?
Re: Re: Re:23
You say this, but what is acceptable to one person may be unacceptable to others. A White supremacist’s usage of racial slurs, for example, may be acceptable to racists but not to virtually anyone else outside of that specific social circle. Individual platforms get to decide what is and isn’t acceptable; while 4chan allows practically every kind of slur, swear, and offensive content short of illegal content, Twitter does not — and both platforms can exist with those different standards because the law says as much.
The government cannot force Twitter’s administrators into letting Alex Jones back on Twitter despite any assertion that Jones’s ban was “politically motivated”. You have yet to cite the law, statute, or court ruling that says otherwise.
Twitter does not exist to “serve the public”, or it would be deemed a geniune public utility and come under the control of the federal government.
And I argue for Twitter’s right to moderate speech on the Twitter platform — and for other platforms to similiarly moderate speech — because without that right, no platform would be able to enforce its own set of standards on what is acceptable to say/do on that platform. If you owned a blog and opened comments to the public, and some asshole kept coming around talking shit about you and your family and your dead childhoot pet, you would want the right to boot that dumbshit from your blog, but you continually argue for changes to 230 that would give said dumbshit the right to force you into displaying his speech for all the world to see. If Twitter or Techdirt or any other privately-owned platform that opens itself to the public cannot have the right to moderate — if those platforms must host every bit of “protected” speech no matter how depraved or disturbing — what would make your blog’s comment section fundamentally different?
Re: Re: Re:24 Re:
You don’t have to, silly. Says that right in Section 230, with list of common law causes. What Masnick asserts is that "good faith" is not required, and that corporations have totally arbitrary power to control the new forums / methods that Section 230 authorized for The Public.
Just this once, read the whole of this and then answer just whether you agree with Masnick or me.That’s the crux of argument. You can come up with any number of other points. And have.
Re: Re: Re:25
By all means, cite the law, statute, or court ruling that says Twitter lacks that arbitrary power. Or that Techdirt lacks that power. Or that 4chan, Tumblr, MySpace, Discord, InfoWars, Stormfront, any given U.S.-based Mastodon instance, any old-school phpBB forum, or any privately-owned, privately-operated blog with an open comment section (regardless of whether the owner of said blog is a corporation) lacks that power. Then cite the law, statute, or court ruling that outlines the exact standards with which all those sites must moderate third-party speech, even if those standards run contrary to what the platform wants to host (e.g., a law that says Stormfront must host Black Lives Matter propaganda without any racist commentary attached).
I’ll wait.
Re: Re: Re:14 Common law is NO part of &am
Now. READ. UP. THERE. I have refined my argument to fair degree, and that question along with the prior is ANSWERED, okay? You are not arguing, just continuing the "nasch" tactic of appearing stupid with endless questions. — And you’re not new, had account for SIX YEARS. You have never before to my fairly good memory tried to engage me, so I guess you’ve taken on designated NAGGER.
A new topic is up. I’ll look in again…
Had to piece this up, some block…
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
blue, you couldn’t refine salt by letting saline solution evaporate in sunlight.
Re: Re: Re:11 Common law is NO part of "schtick".
That’s based on common law.
Once again: common law means the court’s interpretation of the laws. It does not mean what you keep pretending it means (which appears to be "whatever your ignorant brain sputters out").
NO statute can undermine the Constitution, therefore no matter what the text is
This is correct. This is the one thing you get correct. You then misunderstand what it means, of course…
Masnick is wrong that corporations can arbitrarily control MY First Amendment speech even on "platforms".
You don’t have "First Amendment rights." The Constitution does not grant rights to you. It only grants powers to Congress — or prevents them. The First Amendment prevents Congress from passing any laws that restrict speech.
If you are arguing that CDA 230 violates the First Amendment by allowing platforms to restrict speech… um… there is literally not a single lawyer out there who agrees with you. It is not just wrong, it is laughably wrong.
And you keep attacking me for saying — accurately — that platforms have their own 1st Amendment rights. That’s not me interpreting things. That’s me stating a fact. You can claim that you don’t think that’s the way the law/Constitution should be interpreted, in which case you should say that you are disagreeing with two centuries worth of Constitutional law on the basis of your own feelings. You should stop asserting that your demented interpretation of the law — supported by literally no court or lawyer in the land — is magically the correct solution.
That’s the difference here. You are making fantastical assertions about the law that are not based in any sort of reality. The rest of us are. And then you mock us for it as if our citing the facts of the law are crazy statements of opinion.
The only crazy statements of opinion are from you. And you get your facts wrong, constantly. And everyone keeps explaining this to you. Yet you continue to repeat the same debunked points over and over and over and over and over again.
And then freak out when people suggest you’re trolling.
Let’s be clear: you are a troll. You troll this site with nonsense. You have been called out and explained why it is nonsense. And you just repeat the same nonsense all over again. That’s why everyone considers you a troll.
You have a unique view of what you want the law to be that is literally not supported by a single lawyer anywhere in this country, nor is it supported by a single court ruling anywhere in this country. It’s one thing to argue the way the law should be — which is not something you are doing. You keep insisting that the law IS what you claim, when there is literally not a single piece of support for that view. And yet when those of us explain what the law actually says, and what the courts actually say, you spend YEARS attacking our crazy ideas, even though they are merely accurate statements of the law (i.e., companies have 1st Amendment rights).
You could explain why you think the courts are wrong and that companies shouldn’t have 1st amendment rights. At least, then, you’d have some company (not a lot, and not very convincning, but you’d have someone else there with you). But to insist that it is self-evident that corporations don’t have rights — contrary to literally centuries of court rulings on this question — does not make you convincing. It classifies you as a loon.
Re: Re: Re:12 Common law is NO part of "schtick&a
No, it doesn’t. That’s true de facto, but the Constitution begins "We The People" and lay out the very existence of gov’t including courts. We can change that, though admittedly difficult and dangerous, and isn’t any need so long as the principles are clear that judges like elected and all other officials are Our Servants. That’s not meaningless. They are SERVANTS, and it’s honorable when people keep everyone’s interests so equal as possible.
SO I don’t have "First Amendment rights", BUT:
Huh. That is a new one. For you to flatly contradict yourself so quickly.
Corporations are NOWHERE in the Constitution. It is an old abomination of a notion, but the modern practice is quite recent, didn’t pop up until after the Civil War.
The gov’t does have power over corporations, though. The literal first act of a corporation is that prospective officers file papers requesting permission for it to exist. On paper, because they are FICTIONS. But YOU claim they exist and have literal rights where I don’t!
If you’re trying some EXACT phrasing on me so can claim I’m wrong, no, mine is good enough stated.
Fine! I’ll be wrong only according to lawyers, a literal gang of medieval power fanatics, but not according to The People.
You’re clearly a legalist of such degres as can agree with the argument that persons with black skin aren’t human.
Thanks for your long rambling attack but since I’m incorrigible, it’s futile, and you’d look wiser if just accepted that.
I’ll continue to avail of the site so long as you offer it without conditions with plain HTML box. That’s the form contract you offer of own free will in order to do business — after asking permission from The Public to do so. That law has no teeth, but the principle is good.
Re: Re: Re:13 Common law is NO part of "s
Clarification: NO, I’m not "arguing that CDA 230 violates the First Amendment". You haven’t bothered to actually try to comprehend, just go into a rage and fire off some ad hom.
What I say is that YOUR notion that:
"And, I think it’s fairly important to state that these platforms have their own First Amendment rights, which allow them to deny service to anyone."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170825/01300738081/nazis-internet-policing-content-free-speech.shtml
IS WRONG. What you just wrote up there is "The First Amendment prevents Congress from passing any laws that restrict speech." How then, can it suddenly be that "platforms have their own First Amendment rights" instead of it only prohibiting Congress? HMM? You can’t be MORE wrong than assert 1A somehow empowers corporations to rule over other "persons", even if corporations were persons.
Re: Re: Re:13 Common law is NO part of "schti
No, it doesn’t. That’s true de facto
So, uh, you first say I’m wrong, then admit I’m right. Good one.
but the Constitution begins "We The People" and lay out the very existence of gov’t including courts. We can change that, though admittedly difficult and dangerous, and isn’t any need so long as the principles are clear that judges like elected and all other officials are Our Servants. That’s not meaningless. They are SERVANTS, and it’s honorable when people keep everyone’s interests so equal as possible.
All of this, while interesting, says nothing responding to the point I stated, which is that "common law" does not mean what you think it means. This has been explained to you many times. You ignore it every time. And here you just say some bizarre bullshit that is basically meaningless.
Huh. That is a new one. For you to flatly contradict yourself so quickly.
Yup. You’re correct. I spoke sloppily in saying that companies have 1st amendment rights. What I meant, was that they have rights that cannot be removed by Congress under the 1st amendment. I should have been more specific. No one but Congress has 1st amendment rights, but the 1st amendment protects both people and companies from having Congress take away their rights. I apologize for misspeaking. But, everyone else seemed to get what I was saying. Only you take it and twist it. I wonder why.
The gov’t does have power over corporations, though.
Yes. It does. But corporations also have rights that the gov’t cannot take away.
Fine! I’ll be wrong only according to lawyers, a literal gang of medieval power fanatics, but not according to The People.
I think you’re missing the point. Whether it is because you’re a giant trollish idiot, or just stupid, remains to be seen. You’re not just wrong according to the lawyers. There is literally no one who agrees with you. You are making shit up that makes no sense.
You’re clearly a legalist of such degres as can agree with the argument that persons with black skin aren’t human.
What are you on about now? You’re losing this argument (and every argument) so badly now you’re just making shit up out of thin air?
I’ll continue to avail of the site so long as you offer it without conditions with plain HTML box. That’s the form contract you offer of own free will in order to do business — after asking permission from The Public to do so. That law has no teeth, but the principle is good.
You’re a troll and an asshole and, frankly, you should feel bad that your life is so sad that this is what you’re reduced to. But, alas, it is clear that you will never change.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
That almost literally scares the shit out of me. If middle America really is as clueless as you it’s no wonder we’ve ended up with Trump in office and many of the other problems we have. We have plenty of issues kicked off by the far left, too, but damn, you guys are seriously dumb if you’re "average".
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
"We have plenty of issues kicked off by the far left, too, but damn, you guys are seriously dumb if you’re "average"."
True all over and not exclusively to the US either. Historically speaking when the far left are being inept and inflammatory assholes it’s a sign society is on a healthy track. When the same bullshit starts flowing from what should be conservative right, society has a huge problem.
And the sad part here is that you probably should be scared shitless, because middle-class america (and to increasing extent, the EU) is indeed swamped with people who argue and think just like dear old blue here.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
[Sad but True]
The vast majority of idiots are now on the right because conservatives allowed the term to be co-opted by the wingnuts.
I see idiots on the left, too, but they’re not dominating social and political discourse.
Re: Re: Re:6 So "free speech" on a forum that solicits comments means WHAT?
You’re wrong as usual. — By the way, I missed this for timely in the melee here.
SO, lay it out explicitly.
You have a web-site.
You INVITE comments, no stated guidelines.
You use CDA Section 230 so aren’t liable for anything written here, but ARE authorized to remove comments commercial or outside common law, NO others, having ceded the right with a plain HTML box. — Courts don’t differ with me on the defs that allows for speech: you often outline that too, so I’m hip.
Now, we differ on this topic. As others. You imply I’ve no right, but haven’t addressed the cable-TV case I linked, which is apposite.
So you’re going to claim that even with immunity, you STILL are the publisher and editor of all comments, with total control of "platform". I say that wasn’t purpose of Section 230, isn’t the law, and should be made explicit, as recently proposed, and that We The People STILL have final say, though of course can be bamboozled or cheated. Anyway, we’ll see how turns out.
I’ve exampled far worse ad hom than I ever do, and you blow it off as "a joke".
You have the power to remove my comments, though not the Right. I’ve no effective recourse. So go ahead. It’ll make a good test case, I’ve nailed down all loose ends.
Re: Re: Re:7 So "free speech" on a forum that solicits comments means WHA
You use CDA Section 230 so aren’t liable for anything written here, but ARE authorized to remove comments commercial or outside common law, NO others, having ceded the right with a plain HTML box. — Courts don’t differ with me on the defs that allows for speech: you often outline that too, so I’m hip..
So why don’t you file suit in federal court against Techdirt and see how far your theory goes in that you are being censored and that Techdirt needs to keep your comments visible….. because……
And you love to spout things like "Courts don’t differ with me" but never provide anything to backup your statements so that the rest of us can verify that you may be correct.
Maybe if you had some verifiable facts instead of a bunch of feelz, then we might be able to at least have a conservation based in reality.
Re: Re: Re:8 So "free speech" on a forum that solicits comm
Oh, why didn’t slaves in the US file suit and be free? — In part because lawyers don’t upset the status quo. I’d be up against not just Techdirt, but Google and every agitator "free speech" site that they fund with tax-deductible contributions. Like the ACLU, those only take cases that further their agenda, and I ain’t on it.
And with a tough sell, because the case has to be perfect, with no gaps that experts can find.
Also, all I stand to lose is free commenting here. Not worth it.
As practical fact, "AC", I’m forced to only plead for fair treatment, and that’s impossible against pirates / corporatists who don’t recognize moral claims when they can get free content or billions by ignoring it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Cool admission that you’re bullshitting about “free speech” and “fair treatment” and “censorship”. If you thought you could win a case, you wouldn’t keep peppering these comments with your impotent threats to have “common law” enforced upon the site. (Seriously, you fire more blanks than a guy who just got a vascetomy.)
Re: Re: Re:10 Another fanboy comes out against discussion.
I wrote:
And you, as usual, use that for hook to attack:
No, it’s you and Masnick who don’t live up to your stated principles even here with mild-mannered ME. You believe yourselves qualified to pronounce WHO can have a voice and who NOT. That’s the essential of authoritarianism, all that remains is a beer-hall putsch by way of Google "de-platforming" all opposition.
Re: Re: Re:11
On this privately-owned, privately-operated blog? Yeah, Mike has an absolute right to pronounce who can and cannot have a voice on this site. Show me the law, statute, or court ruling that says you can force your way past that right and force your comments to remain unhidden on this blog against his will.
I’ll wait.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Here. I am at this instant making a statement on the Techdirt blog, which if you’re seeing it, proves he doesn’t have an "absolute" right. You can of course say that he doesn’t exercise it, but can hardly — to a logical person — get around that it’s just been demonstrated not "absolute" as you qualified it.
Re: Re: Re:13
He does have that right, though. You can post your comments all you want; you cannot legally stop Mike (or whoever administrates the comments section) from deleting them or hiding them if they so choose. When I talk about “forcing” your comments on this blog, that is what I mean — you think you have an “absolute right” to have your comments presented unfiltered on this platform which you do not own and operate, no matter what the people who do own and operate it think about your comments.
What you fail to realize, and what I recognize every time I post here, is that being able to comment here is a privilege, and Mike can revoke that privilege any time he wants, even if you or I think it is “unfair”. You cannot force him to publish and host your comments any more than I can force him to do the same for mine. His yard, his rules.
Hell, he could choose to close the comments section tomorrow and delete everyone’s comments the next day. What could you legally do to stop him from “censoring” you, me, and everyone else here? What power do you possibly have that can force him into keeping this comments section open against his will?
Don’t bother answering: You can do nothing and you have no such power. Now run along to some other website and complain so the grown folks can talk, you middling middle-school miscreant.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
Repeated. And of course you did, at length, because you can’t stand losing, even though have on that specific.
My country. Up to a point which is established by common law. Masnick can’t, er, use cocaine illegally on his "own" property.
The exact cases to clarify this will arise, just you watch. Corporations have stirred up into open question, which we’re debating here on this PUBLIC FORUM.
Masnick risks… something, necessarily vague if he doesn’t play by what Section 230 says, instead of what he asserts for his corporate interests. He gives up protection if edits. — OR that’ll be decided. My bet is will be decided as I state: choose immunity for comments OR total control, can’t have BOTH.
Isn’t settled if Masnick even runs these pieces asserting, when claims it’s all settled.
Re: Re: Re:15
You keep saying this. I do not think you realize that it is just as impotent a threat as “John Smith” saying he plans to have police investigations launched — if you have to keep making the threat for people to believe it, eventually, nobody is going to believe it. It’s playground bullshit, is what it is.
A privately-owned forum can still be open to the public. Just look at Stormfront. That does not mean it is a forum owned by the public/the government and must therefore treat all speech equally — nor does it mean that you have the right to force Techdirt into displaying your comments unfiltered, which is ultimately what you want (and you’re never gonna get it [not this time]).
Until you can cite the law, statute, or court ruling that says so, your assertion is bullshit.
Under 230, he already has both.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
No, it’s an assertion of what I believe is in the best interest of all "natural" persons. I believe will be made law and/or court decisions.
In contrast, Masnick claims that corporations already have the power to silence us. I’d of course rather my version of the future comes to pass. Why don’t you prefer that too?
Keep arguing, though.
Re: Re: Re:17
Your belief is not the law. Cite the law or visit G.F.Y. Industries. (I hear they sell Bad Dragon toys now.)
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
Here’s news for you: Your beliefs are not the law.
Mine are closer. Indeed, you must certainly know that this is being kicked around Congress, even by "Democrats", in line with my notions, as is the 70% tax rates on unearned income.
Next trivial objection, please.
Re: Re: Re:19
Your beliefs may be closer to what you think the law says, but that does not make your interpretation of the law one under which any platform must operate. Prove otherwise.
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Because we don’t like asshats.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Crazy people like "Professor" Swachenhauer don’t care about consistency or logic. He is obsessed with you and your site and comes up with the most insane rants I have heard from anyone who doesn’t suffer from mental illness. Just read comments to find the crazy ones, flag them and move on as I do. If it happens to be the same crazy person creating new accounts to spam your comment section, no matter how many times he promises to leave, too bad for him. I would get a restraining order out against him and sue him for violating it given some of his threats.
Re: How do you "adapt" to someone taking your content for free?
Seriously? Have you ever went to Google News? It displays a list of news HEADLINES with links to the story.
If the "story" is completely summed up in the headline, it’s probably not a story you deserve to be paid to write.
Re: Re: How do you "adapt" to someone taking your cont
So you have no answer to question in subject line.
Re: Re: Re: How do you "adapt" to someone taking your
So you have no answer to question in subject line.
https://twitter.com/swear_trek/status/1091365679071145984
Re: Re: Re: How do you "adapt" to someone taking your
My point was if "your content" is the title of your story – you have NO story or content.
Re: Re: Re:2 How do you "adapt" to someone
It’s irrelevant. The value to Google is the headline and the traffic those bring to its site. Google is gaining money without returning any money to originators. That’s an untenable "business model" for the originators, which is the topic.
For an exactly apposite case, look up "Meltwater" here at Techdirt, in which has already been held that scraping headlines is ILLEGAL. This principle is well established. — In law, not on Techdirt!
Re: Re: Re:3 How do you "adapt" to some
In return for the Googling listing the headline the original news site gets traffic directed to it. If Google didn’t use the headline then Google’s link could only say "this news site has some news".
Also, your logic applies to any search engine for anything. To be useful, the search engine’s results are going to have to provide at least the title of the page linked to, and that title is something created by the page author, not the search engine. If the website owner considers that to be "theft" then they can simply throw up a robots.txt to tell all the search engines to go away.
Re: Re: Re:4 How do you "adapt&q
AND you then IGNORE that the news sites are going under in current system! I think that’s true.
IF SO, what’s your solution? News sites just close? I don’t find that useful, even though most are putting out FAKE news, a little true still gets through.
Re: Re: Re:5 How do you "adapt&a
If news sites are going under I can’t see how it’s Google’s fault when Google is providing them with traffic. And if the solution to them going under is to subsidize them, I don’t see why it should be those providing links should be the only ones to do the subsidizing. If you’re going to subsidize news sites, you could tax Internet companies in general, or tax ISPS, etc.
As for my solution, I can’t think of one besides subsidizing.
Re: Re: Re:6 How do you "ada
Let’s make the mechanism a link tax! I think that’d be handy and proportionate.
Do you understand that you just AGREED with me and the publishers there?
Re: Re: Re:7 How do you &quot
It’s "handy" in the it’s simple, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s a good idea. It’d be proportionate if linkers were hurting the news sites, but they’re helping the news sites by sending them traffic.
Re: Re: Re:8 How do you &
Well, the anecdotal is that news site claim are going broke. No doubt many, like "BuzzFeed" are badly run. — Did you know that BuzzFeed got FOUR HUNDRED MILLION from NBC? To do WHAT? I rarely even see it! — And now are firing because ill run!)
It’s the traditional NEWS in all upper case meaning actual reporting not just repeating lies from the New York Times sites are going broke.
Anyhoo, I say "looks likely" and you deny the factual basis, so I think you need to provide actual proof. If had such data for "real" news sites, not lying fiends like BuzzFeed, I think you’d have to then tip over into my view,.
Re: Re: Re:9 How do you &
I’m not saying that they aren’t going broke. They might very well be going broke. What I am saying is that places linking to the news sites, with the links containing the headlines, aren’t a cause of them going broke, much less a primary cause. If they are a cause of the news sites going broke, where’s the evidence for that? The mere fact that news sites claim it? Or for some reason is "things like Google News are a cause of news sites going broke" the null hypothesis?
Re: Re: Re:5 How do you "adapt&a
If, as the Spanish newspaper claim, not being indexed reduces their traffic, being indexed means that Google is providing them with value by sending them traffic. Keep us linked and pay a link tax is a demand for a subsidy to keep a bad business model afloat.
Re: Re: Re:4 How do you "adapt&q
Is it possible that no one want to read the articles that newssites get listed to Google? Does that mean that Google isn’t doing a good job, or that the Newssites are covering the wrong stories?
Then there is the question, are any newssites actually making money? If they are, what is their business model? How does that differ from other newsites?
With the answer to those two questions we might be able to have a discussion that will solve the issue of not just Google linking to headlines, but for every search engine linking to headlines. Blaming Google is because Google is big(er) than the others, but it does not exist in a vacuum.
Re: How do you "adapt" to someone taking your content for free?
The difficulties of competing with piracy has nothing to do with this story, and worrying about Google having too much control over Internet traffic had nothing to do with them being charge a fee for linking to news stories.
Re: How do you "adapt" to someone taking your content for free?
Just who is "taking" here?
Maybe Google should just de-list all news sites from its search results unless they pay an advertising fee. They already promote advertisers to the top of the results.
On the other hand, there was never any way that legacy newspapers and magazines were going to make a clean transition to online. So while I can blame him for his rhetoric, I can’t blame them for failing to adapt. Even Wired/Conde Nast hasn’t really transitioned well, and they were doing tech and digital way before newspapers were on the internet.
Re: Re: How do you "adapt" to someone taking your cont
SO you agree with the premises of the publishers there, that (let’s limit to this category of "news") there is NO KNOWN GOOD WAY to get revenue off teh internets.
Masnick blithely yells "FREE CONTENT! NEW BUSINESS MODEL!"
Publishers and I say it’s not that simple. This link tax or whatever you wish to call it looks practical — won’t put Google or any linker out of biz.The only real objection is from masnicks who have as premise that teh internets can ONLY works as they claim: a few giants sucking up all advertising revenue and CONTROLLING everyone else. I don’t like that. You wouldn’t put up with, say, a co-worker filching your ideas and taking them to the boss to get the credit and more pay. It’s similar enough. News people aren’t getting income (from a needed public service) while Google grabs some value and returns so little as can to the public (dodging taxes with schemes it buys wholesale from politicians).
Re: Re: Re: How do you "adapt" to someone taking your
Says the person commenting on a site that gets revenue by putting free content on the Internet.
Re: Re: Re:2 How do you "adapt" to someone
Says the rabid fanboy trying to make a point on site that BEGS for contributions, and dwindles every day; a site which RE-WRITES from other sites at almost no expense of time let alone money. Indeed, Techdirt IS good example of a news site that can’t make it, AND a leech that causes the topic problem.
Re: Re: Re:3
…he says of a website that started in 1997.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Techdirt is definitely dwindling.
Masnick has several times STATED that the site doesn’t gain enough income to support itself. Not even with some persons PAYING for their views to be put in blue,(resented by most, and is the meaning of the reviled "out of the blue" term for anyone new), and with any dissent "hidden", as the site euphemizes censoring.
It goes on (mainly, I believe) because vanity publishing for Millionaire Masnick. (He can’t possibly be less than millionaire after given Ivy League education and house in Frisco, besides money to "invest" in stock market. As for the site, Masnick definitely has an "in" at Google shown by that its general counsel attended his Copia meeting, probably from those met at school, and its "algorithm" boosting the site above even the originator. — His "success" was guaranteed from birth.)
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
…holy shit, you’re not just an asshole, you’re a schoolyard-level bullshitter. Does your dad work at Nintendo, too?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
As for the site, Masnick definitely has an "in" at Google shown by that its general counsel attended his Copia meeting
Not that you care much for "facts" but Google’s General Counsel has never attended any Copia event.
Also, since you keep pointing out the fact that Google sponsored our launch event, why do you always leave out that one of Google’s biggest critics, Yelp, who literally is pushing to break up Google, also sponsored it? It’s almost as if you cherry pick random points, make up others, and just generally spew bullshit. Like a troll.
Similarly, Union Square Ventures, who funded DuckDuckGo, another company that is regularly challenging Google competitively, sponsored our event. USV has similarly spoken out against Google and its position and believes that competitors like DDG are the future.
But you leave that out too. Because… facts are not important to you. Trolling is all that matters. And for whatever reason, you wish to troll this site — a site you insist is irrelevant and/or dying.
What a sad life. One day, perhaps, you’ll grow out of it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Your own graphic shows ongoing sponsorship by Google:
https://copia.is/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sponsors.png
I focus on Google because the biggest. Whether Yelp aligns with me is doubtful.
Since I read that once, it’s tough to find. I’ll look.
Whoops. Stumbled over a question.
WHO IS "the team behind Techdirt"? Ya see, that’s just the sort of question that arises. It’s not normal phrasing. Surely Techdirt IS the team OF Techdirt, but right there, you say there’s one "behind".
I don’t regard myself as trolling. I’m interested in topics. You converted me from mild pirate to copyright enthusiast. You’re just that good.
As for rest, you are OFF-TOPIC and into sneering. If you would stick to topic rather than DODGE it’d help the site. I’m not the first who can’t pin you down. The epic efforts of (I guess) "average joe" failed.
Re: Re: Re:7 Your own graphic shows ongoing sponsorship by Google:
And yet…
…you say things like that, which mark you as either a troll or someone whose education in the English language ended in grade school.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
From https://copia.is/projects/statement-of-innovation-principles/
The next page does not list Google’s General Counsel as present. Does say "With the General Counsels of Twitter, LinkedIn, Mozilla and more." So that’s my evidence of Google’s present too — which I recall but doubt can now be proved. I’ll STOP asserting so, but there is "and more" with Google’s logo for evidence, it wasn’t out of the blue.
Re: Re: Re:7
That is not evidence — that is a massive assumption without any basis in fact other than how you “feel” your assumption is true. A court of law would never accept your feelings as factual evidence; what makes you think anyone here should do what a court would not?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I’m amused by the extremely high probability that if Techdirt actually did die out, OotB would be the last user left when the server finally goes offline. And he’d probable be stalking the custodian of the physical, shuttered property for years to come.
Because obsession like that just doesn’t quit just because the business it’s focused on does.
Re: Re: Re:4 Was countered then censored! Way Techdirt works.
The site can’t stand dissent.
The site doesn’t even depend on popularity! Been going downhill for years — even without me here. Millionaire Masnick stated that ad revenue is down to 5 percent of the peak, yet it goes on due to his vanity! Without this site, he’s nowhere!
(Those wanting a hoot might try to find the moribund "Step 2" site, if still exists. Failing that, take the "Copia" link and see Masnick’s "sponsors", several Silicon Valley capitalists who I’m sure have The Public’s best interest at heart.)
Re: Re: Re:5
What do you think it says about you, then, that you continue to read what you call a “failing”, “irrelevant”, “going downhill” site and continuously comment on how unfairly it treats you as if you’re proud to admit your hateboner for a site you yourself say is dying? Because from where I sit, that says a shitload about you, and ain’t none of it good, fam.
Re: Re: Re:6 Was countered then censored! Way Techdirt works.
It says "cheap hoots", and that’s good enough fer the loiks o’ me, I’m just a simple plain-spoken Mid-Western American.
Reason it doesn’t speak well to you is because you’re an anti-American fiend and pirate.
Not too bright, either. I ALWAYS one-up you when dig in, yet you keep trying, and that provides me with more hoots. Though I feel like bathing after each of your off-topic slime attacks.
Now your turn again.
Re: Re: Re:7
So you come back to a site you admittedly hate to post comments about how much you hate everyone here and show off your blatant and knowing illogical misunderstanding of everything, then throw temper tantrums about “censorship” and “common law”, and all so you can jerk off your hyperfur-sized hateboner when you get “treated unfairly”?
That’s not comedy, that’s a fuckin’ mental illness, man. It’s fuckin’ obsessive behaviour on a scale that puts you on the same level as a regular at 4chan’s /pol/. Get yourself some goddamn professional help, honey — you sound like you fuckin’ need it.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Let’s be fair, here.
At least blue boy consistently thinks the website is going downhill. Sure, he’s been wrong on every count of the current year being Techdirt’s "last" year, but he’s consistent.
Unlike John Smith and Hamilton, who can’t decide if this is a website whose readership is so minuscule it could never affect government policy like SOPA, or if this site reaches such a universal audience that it makes Shiva Ayyadurai piss his panties.
Re: Re: Re:5 Was countered then censored! Way Techdirt works.
The best part is. If you just walked into this thread. It looks like a bunch of people arguing with an insane ghost.
Re: Re: Re:6 Was countered then censored! Way Techdirt works.
Minus the ghost part that wouldn’t be an erroneous assumption to make.
Re: Re: Re: How do you "adapt" to someone taking your
Dude, you were supposed to put the United Way update in between those items.
Re: Re: Re: How do you "adapt" to someone taking your cont
That’s not what he said at all. You can’t equate "hasn’t really transitioned well" to "can’t make good money on the internet". If that’s the level of your reasoning you have I’m not surprised people find your posts dishonest and odious.
But you are missing the obvious thing even though you use it as a invective, new technology will disrupt old technology – those who don’t adapt and come up with a new business mode will disappear. Denying it won’t stop it happening.
Printed news is dying because they are clinging to an old business model. Exporting that business model to the internet is just stupid – anyone with a modicum of reasoning power would realize that.
And saying that stealing ideas is similar enough to Google sending traffic to news sites for free is so mindbogglingly stupid it defies reason.
History is littered with examples of business models dying due to technology advances and they teach us that any prevalent industry which will be obsoleted by new technology will go through roughly 5 phases:
Re: Re: Re:2 How do you "adapt" to someone taking your
Because you’re all over the place, I’ll focus on
Problem is always that "the Internet" facilitates stealing content. You may have read something about that even here.
No one can "compete with free" when that’s your own content which you pay to make and expect to draw traffic to your site, but others can use a practically PERFECT COPY of it yet avoid all the expenses except bandwidth. That’s NOT fair competition, been ruled so.
Now, this link tax seems a good start to providing alternate revenue streams. Google is good at collecting, let’s re-distribute a bit.
If you claim that old ways must change, then why do you cling so rabidly to the very first way that the Internet has sprung up ab initio? (To avoid the phrase "out of the blue", which seems to stir some up). Without even looking at results, too: you just reject what seems fact that news sites are going broke.
Why do you just absolutely insist that GOOGLE MUST WIN ALL? Let’s try to be civilized, reasonable, and FAIR, not just hand over unlimited power to a corporate monster! If get your way, it seems certain to me that new sites will pretty much disappear, replaced with Google’s Daily Dicta.
Re: Re: Re:3 How do you "adapt" to someone taking y
Everyone can see that traditional news papers are dying. Thats not the debate.
Aggregating news headlines and then curating it so it has good info is no different than your neigbor telling you their opinion of the best restaurants to visit.
Your neighbor doesn’t want to suggest a crappy place and doesn’t necessarily know your tastes like you do so he suggests a lot of different places by name and maybe even an item on the menu so you know if they serve steak, fish, or salad.
Google News happens to be a well traveled neighbor with a quick recollection of many news stories. Google curates the list and provides a site name with the headline so you know whats being served at the site. It doesn’t provide the story to you but llets you decide if you want to go there or not and provides a quick way of getting there with a link.
Google News is popular because it got a reputation for having a well curated list of sites. People liked Google’s list more than yahoo, Bing, or some random random person’s list of cool stories to read. Which is why a lot of people go to news.google.com for a list of what’s out there.
The fact that people trust that list just shows that they don’t want to go to a news site first, wade through a bunch of fluff and ads, just so that they can maybe get to a meaty story or relevant news. Just like you dont want to go to a steak house if you want to eat sushi. You dont want to scan through a news site, for say, national political info only to find its all about local political info or knitting.
If a news paper wants to have a good site, with always relevant info to me so I go their first for info then they need to do better than they are currently doing. Maybe they should hire Google to index their site or curate it so it only shows me what I want to see. Oh wait, Google already does that for them for free.
Why again should Google or any other person or business be paying them for pointing people to their newspaper?
Re: Re: Re:4 How do you "adapt" to some
No skin off your nose, anyway.
Well,Google’s "business model" is to make the links. No one actually asks them to in any given case. (Stick with me.) That part works fine.
But you’re taking any one site in isolation, while overlooking that Google profits from the aggregation, in a complex milieu. The sum is, IN MY OPINION that Google is grifting off people who actually work, and it shouldn’t be able to just TAKE without limit. Not only that, but Google is prepared to do actual HARM if taxed even a little! But rest of us get a say in how the world works. You appear ready to just lie down (or profit from) an amoral monster ruling all news.
Google is NOT a good corporate citizen. This is one way to limit it, with advantages of spreading the wealth. Society works best when have mutual interests, but Masnick always advocates Google uber alles.
I don’t think Google will be measurably harmed by this tax. Just be the cost of doing business. But it’s rabidly opposed by masnicks who don’t want Google taxed or limited AT ALL. It’s a wrong, elitist, corporatist view, and left unchecked, will only end in total fascism. — Right now, Google is BARELY taxed. Lower rate than you are. Enjoy slaviing for wages while corporatists gain total control. — Oh, you ARE a stock-holder in Google? Thanks for disclosing your personal interest. Masnick doesn’t…
Failing all that, let’s break up Google because a clear and present danger. We The People don’t have to allow it to exist. Way the Internet works can be adjusted so ALL benefit.
Re: Re: Re:3 How do you "adapt" to someone taking y
Not withstanding that we went from newspapers which can’t handle a paradigm shift in technology I’ll re-butt your off-topic comment.
Problem is always that "<insert tool of choice here>" facilitates stealing <something>. You may have read something about that even here.
Please cite ruling or GTFO.
Yeah well, what about everyone else who also aggregate news links? I use a news aggregator that’s not Google and it is entirely run on an voluntarily basis with no ads – so it’s entirely funded privately by the guy behind the site.
And I love the euphemism of "alternate revenue stream" – it reeks of corporate speak that actually means "lets see from whom we can steal some money from – Google is making money hand over fist, lets see if we can siphon some if it."
"Alternate revenue stream" my ass…
The cognitive dissonance in your arguments is amazing, you scream and rant about people downloading stuff for free but you have no qualms about proposing that news-organisations get free money from Google even though Google is helping them.
ALL old ways change, whether you want it or not – if nothing changes you have stagnated. I don’t cling to anything, it’s you who are clinging – I’m a realist that understand that change must happen for progress to happen. Sometimes change is very messy – especially when people resist it.
I’m not rejecting that news sites are going broke, they are going broke because they are using a business-model that’s outdated.
Please find just ONE post from me where I say Google must win – you wont find one. I’m pointing out, among other things, the ridiculous notion that failing businesses want money from successful businesses because they can’t adapt.
Finally, the logical conclusion of a link tax is that all the aggregators who can’t afford it will disappear and we will be left with Google. This will also hurt all the news publishers but especially the smaller ones which means instead of having a somewhat diverse landscape of aggregators and publishers we get a few behemoth publishers plus Google – which is in direct conflict with what you want.
Re: Re: Re:4 How do you "adapt" to some
So too is Google in trying to escape taxes and set itself up as corporate royalty, deciding which sites — and opinions — can be seen, not answerable to The People.
In general, I admit that have an argument and little else. Doesn’t have any effect on reality nor validity of my views. You have some barely controlled nastiness, and little else besides the wrong, pro-corporatist view of the world.
Now, I see no point to another round. We don’t agree. But go ahead, I’m still waiting on Masnick…
Re: Re: Re: How do you "adapt" to someone taking your
This is more like a coworker listening to customers and saying "go talk to this guy, this is his area."
Re: How do you "adapt" to someone taking your content for free?
I want you to give me $5, it is a pittance and you can easily afford to give it to me.
Re: Re: How do you "adapt" to someone taking your cont
Just come by and collect if so desperate. I will not pay your travel expenses, though.
On the scale of Google, $5 per link is a good rate, I’d go for that, it’s some decimal part of a second’s of its income.
Re: Re: Re: How do you "adapt" to someone taking your
If these sites are losing money to google, then why don’t they use robots.txt in order to no longer have google index their sites, therefore eliminating any perceived stealing of their content??
Re: Re: Re:2 How do you "adapt" to someone
I’ve intended to answer that, but got diverted.
It’s a straw-man argument. No one is disputing the value of traffic. Most sites wish for more. This one sure does.
Anyhoo, the question is whether Google is inordinately profiting off aggregation itself, and therefore should be compelled to pay for the links it uses. Obviously, if Google is using them, they have value. So why is isn’t it good business besides morally appropriate for Google to pay a pittance to keep sites (we all want) going? It appears to be an easy and direct way. And it won’t kill Google, except for the fact that its an amoral money machine recognizing no human bounds. If Google could get money from turning you into sausage it would. — And I don’t say "legally" because it cannot matter to a corporation. It’s not a "person", it’s a MACHINE. Somewhat tempered by the directors having awareness of future risk, like anti-trust, but "the corporation" is heedless of it.
Re: Re: Re:3 How do you "adapt" to some
There you are placing all the value in a small fraction of the content of the Internet, and ignoring the value to people and businesses of comprehensive searchable indexes of the Internet.
Google can survive easily without indexing the newspapers, but can the newspapers survive long term without being in Googles search results?
Re: Re: Re: How do you "adapt" to someone taking your
Unacceptable you have to deliver the $5 to me. Also since this is the 2nd time I’ve come back to read your comments that will be another $5. It is only $10, a pittance really and you can obviously afford it. If you force me to come collect personally there will naturally be a travel fee, fee for my expenses, and a few additional fees tacked on to facilitate the monetary exchange.
Re: Re: Re:2 How do you "adapt" to someone
Astounding. You’re hitting a new low, and on Techdirt that’s saying much.
Re: Re: Re:3 How do you "adapt" to some
Well it hasn’t hit rock bottom yet like you have.
Re: Re: Re:3 How do you "adapt" to some
I am disappointed in you. All I am asking you to do is extend to me the same courtesy that you want Google to extend to the newspaper industry. That will also be another $5, your total is now $15. It is a pittance and no doubt you can easily afford it you can also easily afford to deliver it to me but your insistence that I travel places an onerous obligation on me so you can weasel out of this overly not that burdensome obligation that has been placed on you … have you no shame?
Re: How do you "adapt" to someone taking your content for free?
" Google ALSO sucks up majority of advertising revenue"
How does sending traffic to these news sites sucking up their revenue? Its quite the opposite – these sites are getting more traffic for which they could utilize how they wish.
Re: How do you "adapt" to someone taking your content for free?
That is the result of competition for the for the placement of adverts, and the newspapers need to make themselves more attractive for advertisers if they can. Otherwise it is like ice sellers demanding that fridge manufacturers pay them for the lost income from ice selling.
Are these the same organizations that closed their comments sections? That is a great way of convincing people to go elsewhere for news and discussion.
Re: Re:
Good way to muddy the topic with complex and difficult widening. But forums are not what I’d call news as in objective factual, they’re opinion. And as sometimes mentioned HERE, not all comments are wanted.
Remember?
Remember when there were real newspapers? One third to one half the paper (especially the Saturday edition) was classified ads. Funny how nobody seems to be railing that Craigslist etc. should be compensating the newspapers.
Then what? If the "news" becomes Facebook pages written and submitted by readers, who quote news sources, is it still subject to a link tax? How about if Google bypasses the newspapers and goes direct to Reuters and AP? Would that make the newspapers happy? If the newspaper site publishes an article referencing Reuters, do they need to pay a link tax to Reuters too? How much rewording makes the item tax-exempt?
And as another post says, what if they establish a partnership? Let’s say, Google and NPR agree to collaborate for a lesser fee, but all that money goes to that one news source?
Re: Remember?
Craigslist didn’t steal their content, just their most valuable turf. Swallowed it whole. That’s what destroyed the industry.
Re: Re: Remember?
I guess some people just wanted a classified ad section instead of paying for a whole paper.
Re: Remember?
I think the News sites are looking to build their own search engine (which would be exclusive or taxed), like the airlines did with Expedia to (almost) take out Priceline. Priceline roared back because they specialize in this function and generally do it better than an industry-run site.
reply?
So Mike, when are you going to post a reply in that paper with all your counter arguments?
Gasket
So is just saying the word “Google” in any context enough to make blue lose his freakin mind and start shouting “Common Law” and “Nazi” and “Censorship!”
His words are up at the top of the page – guess he got what he wanted, eh?
Re: Gasket
Well, according to him, his words are in blue, which means they’re actually “out of the blue”, which is A Bad Thing.
Re: Re: Gasket
I seriously wonder why he changes his name every day and why that helps him hold a conversation. What are we supposed to call him?
Also I can’t believe after the number of times I’ve asked him, what the hell he thinks common law actually is?
Re: Re: Re: Gasket
I wonder how he doesn’t realize that his comments being hidden are because everyone keeps voting his words into the hidey-hole. Like, all of us clicking that flag because we don’t want to see his abusive nonsense.
Re: Re: Re: Gasket
He changes his name in the hope that he won’t be recognized. The problem is that in his demented way of thinking he comes up with names that are easily recognized as him. That leads me to not reading his posts, because his inane login name regime makes him easily recognizable, and therefore easily flagable. So flag I do, read I do not.
Waiting for his inane response where he tell me that common law and the 1rst Amendment require me to read his nonsense. They don’t, and I won’t.
Re: Re: Re:2 Gasket
That’s a good HOOT. You misconstrue. Entirely. — I STUCK to one name and you guys imitated it with lies until I countered with a simple checksum to make it identity theft. You’ve tried EVERY way possible to get rid of me, EXCEPT simply flicking your eyes past my text. I suggest that you prove can. Instead of ad homming when think I’ve left. Doesn’t help the site. You clowns do vastly more damage to TD than I ever could, and no, I don’t try, just watch you clowns.
Again, just wrong. I come up with THE worst puns or obviously humorous names, simply so that when TOR browser automatically selects another route, I’m still IDENTIFIED, okay?
I also help with UPPER-CASING (though not random, just habit for emphasis). A glance should be enough to flick eyes past.
Having so misunderstood the obvious schtick parts, I can’t hope for much.
But bottom line is that you don’t want to even know that my opinions exist! Thad The Ant-Slayer does that with Grease Monkey script. Doesn’t argue that you’re tough if can’t stand my little bits of text.
Re: Re: Re:3 Gasket
Point proven!
Re: Re: Re:3 Gasket
Nobody imitates you, you dumbfuck.
Contrary to what you might think, it’s hard for the rational to comprehend someone brain-damaged and mimic them effortlessly.
Re: Re: Re:3 Blueblows gaskets
Why you still here bro?
Re: Re: Re:2 Gasket
Actually, he started doing it in order to dodge the Greasemonkey script I wrote to block anonymous posts.
(Blue is very smart. After I wrote the script, posted the source code on my blog, and started linking to it in every single one of my posts, it only took him about a year to figure out that if he stopped posting as Anonymous Coward, my block on posts by Anonymous Coward wouldn’t work on his posts.)
So I changed my script to block posts by users who aren’t logged in and who I haven’t whitelisted.
With all this bullshit news I’ve almost come to the point where I say: fuck it. Let them ruin it all. I’ll flash back to the 80s, hand out my stencilled local journo articles and share my mixtapes and locally produced recordings. Things’ll go much, much slower, but hey, at least the old system still works and gets the music around. That’s how we did it back then and that’s how we can still do it. A crying shame, yes, but at least I’ll be able to raise my kid properly, tellin’ her that THAT’s how we did things back in the days.
Re: Mix Tapes
If you want to promote the spread of culture, we can use the internet to do that no matter what the corporations want. There is so much more music available not than there ever was, and good tools to help find it.
Only thing getting in the way of it being better is bad copyright laws.
_Article I Section 8. Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”_
Never forget that the constitution tells us the purpose of copyright it to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Culture belongs to the public domain.
So mix those tapes, upload those videos, re-mix everything and promote the arts!
Re: Re: Mix Tapes
You always then omit HOW: "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".
We already have the practical system worked out. Works well when people stay within clear law not keep pushing for "FREE". Remains only for The Law to be enforced. The content industries aren’t even draconian as you types claim, just wanting some reasonable assurance of getting paid by most people.
But pirates don’t pay, that’s their defining characteristic.
Re: Re: Re: Mix Tapes
And how do you propose to enforce this law without…
You have implied over and over that copyright law should be enforced to the letter without question, due process be damned. Now I ask you to defend your position. How much of a coward will you be this time?
Re: Re: Re:2 Mix Tapes
A perfect system? Gosh, I don’t know! Guess if you murdered in broad daylight on video (as I think analogous to piracy using real movie names on torrents / upload sites), rest of us should just shrug and say "but we might get it wrong!"
I have not implied such, but DO often go far as I can to contrast with you pirates who think you can take any and all work of other people.
Now, you simply do not yet, I think refuse to understand that in copyright, say a rightsholder making accusation to an ISP, that "due process" is NOT the full criminal standard that you try to insist on because makes pirates less likely to be caught. The specific "due process" in DMCA provides that an ISP must take those MERE accusations as serious and cancel / limit or at least take SOME action on the account. — That’s precisely because the loss of a "shared" movie is low, and would clog the court system. It’s administrative law. I’d like you to state that you’ve seen the words "administrative law" this time, and then NEVER bother me on the "due process" bit again, because THAT IS THE LEGISLATED DUE PROCESS in that area, understand?
Re: Re: Re:3
Of all the dumbass analogies I have ever seen you and the troll brigade make, this is one of the goddamned stupidest to ever crawl out of your collective asshole.
And therein lies the whole issue: “Due process”, as you describe it here, is “guilty until proven innocent” under the DMCA — that someone who is merely accused of infringement must prove their innocence. If I am accused of a crime by the proper authorities, the prosecution must prove I committed the crime to receive a conviction and have me punished; under the DMCA, the accuser does not need to prove anything before the allegedly infringing content is taken down and the accused party is punished.
You defend this system, which places the burden of proof on the accused. You applaud this system, which accepts accusations as evidence and acts accordingly. Hell, given how much you decry due process for accused criminals in stories unrelated to copyright, the possibility exists that you literally jack off while thinking about the unfairness of this system. I could be convinced to wager good money that you would prefer seeing hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of false DMCA claims filed and followed through with in the name of stricter copyright instead of seeing a single person falsely accused of copyright infringement have their innocence proven at any stage of the fight and walk away scot-free.
Re: Re: Re: Mix Tapes
Constitution also doesn’t say we have to listen to you. But you always omit that part.
Re: Re:
Most of them didn’t care because it wasn’t spread globally, it wasn’t easy to spread, the albums usually were a superior physical media, and radio drove revenue.
Ah, Techdirt! Censoring even while boasting "free speech"!
This site pretty much examples Google’s intents: ONLY "news" that it deems useful for its purposes will be indexed.
Anyone new should simply observe that above none of those arguing with me in least admit that Google is a danger or should be limited in any way. They’re total Googlers.
Re:
So what? Sites like InfoWars do the same thing, and I don’t see you rallying to have them deemed “unfair” and have their right to moderate comments curtailed in the interests of “common law”.
Re: Re: Re:
Infowars doesn’t pretend to be an objective gatherer of stories. Nor is it on same scale as Google.
Again, far as I know, Infowars doesn’t "moderate", just too much trouble. It’s even worse than here, I don’t read it.
But comments on a site have NOTHING to do with whether Google is fair indexing headlines while pretending to be, nor whether it could and should pay a link tax that seems called for, it’s just your stream of consciousness, Waring blender style of raising objections to create off-topic diversion.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"whether Google is fair indexing headlines while pretending to be"
Even if true, what does it matter? Go somewhere else to get your news.
News has been devalued by UGC.
Some news sites make fortunes. Breitbart didn’t do too bad.
Just because it failed everywhere else in the world is no reason to think it won’t work this time.
Perhaps when they fired all of the fact checkers to pay the executives more & pivot to video (because they did nothing to confirm the claims) they shot themselves in the foot…. again.
Perhaps it is the simple lesson that is hard to learn…
It isn’t Googles fault your papers are failing, it is your fault for ignoring reality changed & demanding Google reward you for inaction. This rates up there with the drunk who got behind the wheel caused an accident who then sues the car maker for not using a patent they hold for putting an interlock on every car.
Why shouldn't Google be paid?
The fundamental question that the "link taxers" never address is: "Why shouldn’t Google be paid for sending traffic to news sites?" Unquestionably, sending traffic is a generally-accepted business model, hundreds of years old, on the web as well as on local streets and highways. It is, in fact, part of the business model for traditional newspapers. Unquestionably, Google links are a great value for newspapers; wherever the fascists have forced a link tax into law, the newspapers have suffered.
Google News provides a service to its public customers; as a side effect, it benefits many websites (who are found by the public as a direct result of Google links.) Some commercial websites profit by that; why shouldn’t they be required by law to pay Google "a pittance" of that profit?
There’s a reason the fascists don’t touch that question. There is no conceivable answer that doesn’t boil down to "the facts are against me, but I say so anyway, and I’m stupid enough to think that should matter to anyone."
This has nothing to do with whether Google is good or bad, or whether it does or does not make it hard to find idiots on the net, or whether finding idiots is really what people want to do, or what they ought to want to do. This has nothing to do with whether the big-business newspaper publishing firms are fair or not, whether they generally promote one political party or the other, or whether they ought to promote one party rather than the other. (For the record, I think Google is better than any of the alternatives I’ve seen; I wish it would bury more idiots after the internet-archive cat video links; all the big newspapers are run by evil morons, and the best guide to all forms of reality is to assume that their reporting is all wrong.)
This is a simple economic question: why do those newspapers (evil morons or noble-minded geniuses though they be) expect that Google ought to pay THEM for the privilege of giving them other valuable benefits?
Re: Why shouldn't Google be paid?
Google IS paid.
But, on your line: Google uses whose equipment to scan the internet? Why aren’t they paid (specifically) every time Google traffic goes through their hardware? HMM?
Let’s just agree that much is too complex to meter, and shouldn’t be, should work together like humans, not dog-eat-dog "capitalism" (not least because YOU then have no value except as an economic unit for corporations to exploit).
Now, I take as fact that news sites are going broke. Seems nailed down. You not only don’t care, instead want Google enriched!
Google won’t go broke paying this pittance, seems a workable plan to subsidize news sites. So why not? — Oh, won’t be last step? Well, do you think that Google will stop growing? Or will it soon control all "news" to its evil agenda?
Re: Re: Why shouldn't Google be paid?
It will not remain a pittance for long, as copyright maximalists seem to think that anything that touches their content is getting all its value from that content, and so all the profit belongs to them.
Re: Re: Re: Why shouldn't Google be paid?
Intended to hedge against this obvious counter, so thanks for reminding me.
IF your predictive FUD occurs, then we’ll again need a fix. As need one now for news sites. The world isn’t static as you wish, we must constantly monitor and correct. Not let amoral globalist corporations run wild as they are certain to, a prediction solidly based on all human experience.
Re: Re: Re:2
What, then, should we do about the “globalist” corporations that wield copyright like a cudgel and try to expand copyright for their best interests, the general public be damned?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
We make a new internet and keep the corporations out.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I don’t think keeping the corporations out will make a better Internet. Keeping them from controlling the Internet will make a better Internet. I still want to contact corporations, even on the Internet.
What might be a better rule is to not let corporations shield themselves in the Internet. Whereas they might be required to post an email contact that will be responded to, rather than not posting such a link or ignoring anything coming into whatever links exist.
Re: Re: Re: Why shouldn't Google be paid?
Those corporations represented by the RIAA and MPAA will and have used license fees and the legal system to destroy competitors, or cripple their ability to make a profit. Just ask Spotify about rapacious demands. Indeed if they had their way, there would be no web sites available for you to post your ravings on.
Will you be happy when all you can do is pay handsomely for content controlled by big corporations.
Re: Re: Why shouldn't Google be paid?
Please explain how Google is getting paid for aggregating news links.
It’s obvious you don’t have a clue on how the internet works. Ever heard of peering agreements? Or that Google actually owns a lot of fiber plus they rent a lot more?
Parsing error…
Actually, it’s you that says we should enrich the news sites with Googles money.
You said the magic word: ‘subsidize’ – in which we take resources from one entity to prop up another which can’t survive by itself. In this instance Google are already subsidizing news publisher.
Also, "evil agenda" is an entirely emotional and subjective description.
Re: Re: Re: Why shouldn't Google be paid?
I do, but abbreviated. Knew it left a hole, and you’re a hole expert.
Not necessarily, let alone bad. Over half of modern society is "subsidized". Google uses The Public’s Internet, is a FICTION, and we can make whatever rules we want for it. Google has no rights as such (despite lawyers claiming so: they have also said that a human was property): it’s a permitted entity, as is EVERY business.
But it’s objectively true about Google. I don’t hope to convince you, "Rocky", but these views aren’t outre elsewhere, nor is my call for steeply progressively tax rates on The Rich and corporations, that’s been taken up recently and now AOC is riding high… I just WISH were a few more REAL Democrats around, not corporatist masnicks pretending.
In short, you have an opinion. So do I.
Re: Re: Re:2 Why shouldn't Google be paid?
Google pays to use the Internet. I pay to use the internet. It’s public but it’s not free. The "permission" is money. And I’m astonished you are talking about forcing a company to shell money for another while providing free service to said another. Even socialists didn’t dare to go that far.
Also, you are completely misunderstanding AOC. Google is not the government.
"In short, you have an opinion. So do I."
And your opinion is pure insanity, devoid of facts or evidence.
Re: Why shouldn't Google be paid?
google is a search engine. That is their job. That corporation gets it revenue through advertizing. It is not a fucking government. If it starts [taxation] for its services, you will watch it fade into obscurity because other "search engines"fine with ad revenue will fill that void faster than a hurricane on steroids.
Songwriters
News has more protections. The work produced by songwriters is subject to compulsory mechanical licenses, unlike news articles (or musical performers).
I don’t live in fucking europe. Why should I be concerned about laws they make over there?
Re: Re:
Did you even read the Headline?
Re: Re: Re:
Probably not.. my bad. And its not the ffirst time. Now, what did I miss?!!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait I got it. So these newspapers are dinosaurs. They’ll completely put themselves out of business. Save The Trees! What? It takes a license to spread news? So what’s the problem?
Re: Re:
Who gives a fuck where you live?
man agitates for law that would require you to pay him
Heh. The internet has been brutal to the New York Times. When its easy to pop through a couple dozen different news sources from across the world, well, the ‘gray lady’ is showing her age.
MM is for free speech until someone shows he's wrong.
You can’t even put "Masnick" in the subject lines, that’s how sensitive he is.
Then he gets all proprietary "my site", just like any content owner.
And by the way (lost up there and I don’t want to look), you might note how Masnick carefully isn’t explicit that he wants me censored, but still claims that’s "the community". What a chicken. Bawk, bawk!
Oh-oh! Masnick Clucking Syndrome is setting in! Quick, the hooter!
Re:
I thought you were for content owners having control over their sites.
Re: Re: Re:
Content, not sites, as not in question.– That’s on copyright, not THIS topic.
Point which you skip / try to divert from is that Masnick is indeed proprietary just like everyone else.
Re: Re: Re:
…so what?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
So he’s proprietary just like everyone else. He hates that, pretends to be coolly objective in all, above the fray. But you can’t understand the fervor for copyright without those FEELINGS of owning and the outrage when "yourself" is stolen. But that’s another topic. This one is what? Link taxes.
Re: MM is for free speech until someone shows he's wrong.
MM is for free speech until someone shows he’s wrong.
Nope. I’m for free speech in that everyone is free to say what they want, or not. And everyone is free to associate with whom they want, or not. And that includes if sites decide they don’t wish to associate with someone they are free to choose not to. And I support your free speech rights as well. That’s an entirely different question of whether or not I have to promote your speech, which is what you are truly asking for. That is not a right anyone has.
You have the right to set up your own site and do whatever the fuck you want on it. But if you are vandalizing my site, I have a right to keep things clean. I also have the right to delete your comments, but I choose not to do so, because leaving your idiocy up is quite amusing.
You can’t even put "Masnick" in the subject lines, that’s how sensitive he is.
I don’t know if this is true or not, but if it is, it’s because having "Masnick" in the headline is frequently reported as spam, so our filters now interpret it to be that way. In other words, the reason it does that is… because of you and your inane comments. Not my supposed "sensitivity."
And by the way (lost up there and I don’t want to look), you might note how Masnick carefully isn’t explicit that he wants me censored, but still claims that’s "the community".
This doesn’t make any sense at all. We have set up a system that lets the community determine what they consider to be quality, and what they consider to be trash. They consider you trash — and with good reason. You are trash.
Again, on literally 99% of all sites out there, your form of trolling would just be deleted outright. I still let you hang out here and post your nonsense. And then you whine about it. Hilarious.
What a chicken. Bawk, bawk!
Very convincing.
Oh-oh! Masnick Clucking Syndrome is setting in! Quick, the hooter!
You must be fun at all the parties.
Re: Re: MM is for free speech until someone shows he's wrong.
Thanks. But you have tried to stop me by blocking my home IP addresses, and I think have no way to block TOR browsers — trouble getting in suddenly stopped in 2017, so I don’t exactly credit you for good will. — Block me if can! I’m an addict, by your own statements. — You DO have power to remove comments, but you’ve said so much so often on that it’s hard to take back… And it’d be a lot of trouble, main reason I think you "let" me comment here.
I now see that typing chicken noises brought you out, and that was just feeble humor. Skip that.
Again, you could all try just ignoring me. If so silly as say. But ad hom isn’t answering.
Re: Re: Re: MM is for free speech until someone shows he's wrong
What are you going to do, pretty boy? Ask Masnick to stop letting you post like your corporation masters asked Google? I’d say be careful of what you wish for, but if you want to toss yourself off that cliff, that’d be hilarious to see.
Article 13 voted!
Re: Re: Re:2 MM is for free speech until someone shows he's w
Say, "AC" who’s clearly always watching the site even LATE on a Friday night: WHO ARE YOU? What administrative control do you have? Are you one who does astro-turfing too?
By the way, sense you no make.
Re: Re: Re:3 MM is for free speech until someone shows he
It’s mid-Saturday, you mental defective. I thought you said only 27 Bangladeshis visit this site? Oh, wait, you were lying! What a fucking surprise.
Re: Re: Re: MM is for free speech until someone shows he's wrong
Thanks. But you have tried to stop me by blocking my home IP addresses, and I think have no way to block TOR browsers — trouble getting in suddenly stopped in 2017, so I don’t exactly credit you for good will.
Again, if your IP is getting blocked, it’s because your IP has been voted trollish so often that the system just judges you to be likely spam. Stop blaming me for your own bad behavior and the consequences of it.
You read way too much into the decisions of the spam filters (and the community voting) always believing it must be me. I’m so deep in your stupid trollish mind that you think I have powers I don’t.
What a life.
Again, you could all try just ignoring me. If so silly as say. But ad hom isn’t answering.
I’m an eternal optimist. I think one day you’ll grow up and realize what a shitstain you’ve been all these years, and I still have faith that you’ll be redeemed.
Re: Re: MM is for free speech until someone shows he's wrong.
Oh, I see now. Two posts.
No, only asking for EQUAL treatment, with your own "ignorant motherfucker" is "a joke" standard. I’m always well above that. It’s my opinions that you can’t stand. And can’t let be seen because undermine your notions.
You are intentionally discriminating against viewpoints. — And it’s not just me. The others simply leave. The few new who drift in see your actual practice, and don’t stay. The pirates do, though you "support copyright", which I’ve always found odd.
Re: Re: Re: MM is for free speech until someone shows he's wrong
Yes. You have equal treatment. You are as equally reported as is the limerick mocking you. Equal treatment.
Have a DMCA vote.
Re: Re: Re: MM is for free speech until someone shows he's wrong
Newsflash, Dr. Frankenwhine: You ain’t entitled to "equal" treatment.
Why shouldn't Google be paid?
Google is providing a service to the giant monopolistic news corporations, who are of course trying to suppress alternative sources of news. Why does someone who claims to so hate corporations, monopolies, AND mainstream news sources, spend so much time arguing that justice and economic reality alike must be ignored if needed — to support the giant monopolistic corporations?
Re: Why shouldn't Google be paid?
One problem at a time, okay? That’s eight at once.
Let’s cut Google and the other giants of all kinds down to size, and then the alternatives have a better chance. Agree?
I can’t untangle your words, so I’ll just state that I’m not inconsistent: so long as all corporations are limited, and regarded as merely useful fictions, then they’re useful.
Masnick explicitly advocates unlimited power for corporations to control speech in the very "platforms" where they’re immunized so The Public can have free speech. Given that view, do you side with me or Masnick?
Ready? Altogether now!
There once was an out of the blue
Who hated the process of due
Each comment he’d made
Was DMCAed
And shoved up his ass with a screw
Re: Ready? Altogether now!
I see you have zero problem with this repetitious dreck, Masnick. It’s been going near all the time I’ve been looking in. That’s the real level of the site, and I like it seen. Your fanboys never catch on that they’re ruining the site.
In comparison, I don’t "darken your site", but shine light. By the way, I can’t in any case, as "your site" is out of my reach. That was the point I illustrated. I’m just using the "platform" as Section 230 provides, and that’s MY part of the site. That’s the way the internet is supposed to work, that’s why the mere statute. If you can’t handle criticism (in CRFA that’s protected, but again, no enforcement just principle), close the comments somehow.
Re: Re: Ready? Altogether now!
You can always report it, then.
Just remember: out_of_the_blue believes all reported comments to be true.
Because he just hates it when due process is enforced.
Guess time to declare victory and leave...
But soon as I do, betcha half a peach they’re back with more ad hom.
Oh, well. Here goes:
"We have won a great victory today! The war is within measurable distance of its end!"
Re: Re:
Right, victory on a site you claim nobody reads.
If there’s one thing you do well, it’s shitting where you eat.
From symbiosis to parasitic
Ah, the classics…
They aren’t doing so good, they look and see that the company that is sending them free traffic is doing good, so they start whining about how obviously said company needs to give them money, conveniently/hypocritically ignoring that if providing value to another party means that money needs to change hands then they are going to need to start paying Google more than Google needs to pay them.
A failure of business model
Techdirt should have a strapline that just reads "Free is not a fucking business model!"
Some of the faults they made are explained by Jeremy Littau:
https://twitter.com/JeremyLittau/status/1088503510184927233
Flip the Inclusion Model
From now on, news snippets and links show up on Google News ONLY if the news organization has PAID for the privilege. Publishers would need "news-sense" ("a la" adsense) accounts with Google and be required to provide explicit rules in robots.txt files to permit a new Google agent googlesnipper to index and snippify their content.
Re: "Why would WE pay for value THEY are getting?!"
I guarantee you, if someone proposed that they start paying Google for being listed on it’s platforms they would absolutely lose what remains of their minds, all the while completely ignoring the hypocrisy of their position and objection.
Mind, it would be funny to see…
They think they are entitled to a snippet tax … well, I think I am entitled to a personal data fee. You sell my personal data, you owe me a fee.
"That’s not "separating publishers from readers" unless the publishers are so clueless they do nothing to build a loyal community."
What community? Every big news site has turned off the ability to comment, you cannot build a community with out any sort of communication. And "go comment on our Facebook page" does not cut it.